Sri. D. Vishwanath S/O D. Channaviranna vs. State Of Karnataka

Petitioners/accused No.1 to in Crime of Gangavathi Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt.D.Suryaprabha, who is respondent No.2 in the present case, are before this Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them in the interest of justice.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 as complainant filed the complaint against accused No.1 to 5 stating that she and her daughter Shravanti are the owners of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.220/b2, 220/b3-old 220/3-new and 221/a-old and 221/1-new situated in Mustur village, Gangavathi taluk, Koppal district. It is stated that the said properties are self-acquired properties of her husband late D.Tatajirao who died on 27.03.2006 in a road traffic accident. After his death, the properties devolved on respondent No.2 and her daughter. It is stated that respondent No.2 and her daughter were pursuing for the quarry license with the Department of Mines for the purpose of renewal of lease and at the same time they came to know that accused have submitted a representation dated 03.07.2006 claiming the above said lands, on the basis of the Will dated 09.03.2006 alleged to have been executed by late D.Tatajirao.

It is stated that the said Will was found in the records of Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal on the face of it, it is a forged and fabricated document. In the said Will it is stated that the properties in question belong to M/s.Sapthagiri Enterprises and it will be divided into three shares i.e. 1/3rd share each, where accused No.2-D.Sridhar and his father will inherit 1/3rd share and accused No.1 will inherit 1/3rd share. The complainant was shocked to know regarding the said Will which is a rank fabrication. The properties were never belonged to M/s.Sapthagiri Enterprises as the same were purchased by late D.Tatajirao.

It is stated that the Will in question was forged and fabricated by the accused only with an intention to grab the valuable properties that were standing in the name of late D.Tatajirao. It is stated that when the complainant had entered the land in question to get it surveyed, accused No.1 and 2 along with other villagers threatened the complainant with dire consequences proclaiming that they will become the owners of the lands eventually. Apprehending danger from the accused, the first information was came to be lodged against the accused alleging conspiracy, cheating and fraud played by the accused in creating a forged Will so as to grab the valuable property.

The complaint was came to be registered on 24.01.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 120, 506 read with 149 of IPC. It is stated that the investigation is still in progress.

The petitioners who are arrayed as accused No.1 to 5 are before this Court seeking to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

Heard Sri.Neelendra D Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vinayak S Kulakarni, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri.S.H.Mittalakod, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a false and frivolous complaint is came to be lodged without any basis. According to the informant accused No.1 and 2 have concocted the so called Will during 2006. But the complaint was came to be lodged on 24.01.2018. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the complaint was filed belatedly i.e. after about 12 years.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the documents produced before the Court, quarrying was undertaken on the basis of the license granted in favour of M/s.Sapthagiri Enterprises which was owned by late D.Tatajirao. Assistant Commissioner, Local Goods and Services Tax Office, Gangavathi issued a certificate which shows that D.Tatajirao, proprietor of Sri.Sapthagiri Enterprises is subjected to De- Registration from VAT with effect from 05.01.2006. 11. It is stated that way back on 03.07.2006 accused No.1 and 2 have submitted an application to the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology seeking transfer of the said lands in their joint names on the basis of the Will. Subsequently by an application dated 19.10.2006 the earlier application dated 03.07.2006 was withdrawn. In the meantime, respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against accused No.1 and 2 and the same was also withdrawn as there was compromise between the parties at the intervention of the elders. Accordingly, the properties in question mutated in the names of respondent No.2 as per M.R.No.58/2006-07. 12. Learned counsel also submitted that on 16.12.2006 respondent No.2 sold 1.15 acres of land in Sy.No.221/1 in favour of accused No.1 and 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.220/b2 in fvour of accused No.2 under two separate registered sale deeds. All these facts and circumstances are admitted and accused have never claimed any right over the properties on the basis of the Will now put forth by respondent No.

The first information lodged by the informant is without any details and there is absolutely no reason as to why the same was came to be filed during January-2018, even though according to respondent No.2 the Will was fabricated during 2006. Admittedly, the accused never put forth any claim over the properties on the basis of so called Will. Therefore, there was no cause of action for the complaint. It is only to pressurize these petitioners for terms, a false criminal complaint is lodged without any basis. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Will was fabricated by all the accused during 2006 and thereafter they submitted an application to the Senior Geologist seeking transfer of the mining license in their name on the basis of the forged Will. However, subsequently they withdrawn that application. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 had never came to know regarding forging of the Will during 2006. It is only recently respondent No.2 came to know about the Will and got the copy of it from the Department of Geology. Therefore, immediately the present complaint was came to be filed. When the accused had made attempt to grab the valuable immovable properties by forging a Will, they are liable for prosecution.

Learned counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai even though there was settlement between the parties, parties are not entitled to seek quashing of criminal proceedings for forgery. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays for dismissal of the petition as devoid of merits.

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State submitted that immediately after registration of FIR, the investigation was undertaken and the Will in question is forwarded to FSL for examination and for report. But still the report is awaited. Therefore, the investigation is not completed and the charge sheet is not yet filed. Hence, he prays for passing appropriate orders.

Perused the materials on record. In the light of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following point would arise for my consideration: “Whether the complaint and FIR bearing registered with Gangavathi Rural Police are liable to be quashed?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: REASONS

As per the information lodged by the informant/respondent No.2 the accused have concocted and forged the Will during 2006 with an intention to grab the immovable properties bearing Sy.No.220/3 and 221/1 of Mustur village, Gangavathi taluk, Koppal district. In furtherance of their evil design petitioner No.1 had produced the copy of the said Will before the Geologist seeking transfer of mining licence in their name. However, subsequently the same was came to be withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the application dated 03.07.2006 submitted by accused No.1 and 2 to the Senior Geologist, Koppal seeking transfer of mining license in their name on the basis of the Will. Learned counsel also produced the representation dated 19.10.2006 filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 with the Senior Geologist, Koppal withdrawing their application dated 03.07.2006 seeking transfer of the license in their name. Similarly a document is produced which is also of the year 2006 wherein respondent No.2 has submitted a representation with the Police Sub-Inspector, Gagavathi Rural Police Station withdrawing her complaint dated 24.08.2006 filed against petitioners No.1 and 2 on the ground that the dispute between her and accused No.1 and 2 was settled amicably at the intervention of the elders.

The mutation extract in M.R.No.58/2006-07 discloses that the name of respondent No.2 is mutated in respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.217/1a, 220/b2, 220/b3 and 221/1. This mutation order is dated 19.09.2006. The petitioners have also produced copies of two registered sale deeds executed by respondent No.2 in respect of portions of the property inherited by her husband D.Tatajirao, in favour of accused No.1 and 2. All these documents were never disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 21. These documents go to show that there was dispute between the parties during 2006 and petitioners No.1 and 2 have put forth a Will and produced it before the Geologist seeking transfer of license in their favour on the basis of the said Will. In the meantime, respondent No.2 has filed a criminal complaint against petitioners No.1 and 2 with the police. However, subsequently, petitioners No.1 and 2 have withdrawn their application filed before the Geologist and respondent No.2 also withdrawn her complaint filed before the police. It is stated that there was settlement of the dispute between the parties at the intervention of the elders and therefore both of them have withdrawn their respective complaint/application.

It is not in dispute that petitioners No.1 and 2 have purchased portions of the properties inherited by respondent No.2 from her husband, under two registered sale deeds for consideration. It is pertinent to note that all these developments including sale of properties under the registered sale deeds taken place during 2006. Now on 24.01.2018 respondent No.2 filed the present complaint with the police alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 read with 149 of IPC. It is stated that the complainant came to know regarding the Will recently and thereafter filed the complaint. There is absolutely no details as to how and when respondent No.2 came to know regarding the Will produced by petitioners No.1 and 2 before the Geologist. Admittedly, that was during July-2006 and it is not in dispute that subsequently the said application was withdrawn by petitioners No.1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had filed an application during 2006 itself against petitioners No.1 and 2 and subsequently withdrawn the same. Strangely the copy of the said application is not produced before this Court to verify regarding the contents of the same. However, in the first information lodged in the present case, there is absolutely no reason assigned as to why after 12 years the FIR is registered against the accused. It is stated that when respondent No.2 went to the lands for getting them surveyed, petitioners No.1 and 2 along with local village members have threatened her with dire consequences. Strangely, no details of such incident i.e. date, time and place of the incident are not mentioned by the complainant.

Bare reading of the first information lodged by respondent No.2 will not make out any of the offences alleged against the petitioners except saying that petitioners No.1 and 2 have forged the Will and tried to grab the properties. The documents placed before the Court disclose that all such incident had taken place during 2006 and respondent No.2 had in fact filed a complaint with the police and subsequently withdrawn the same stating that the dispute between the parties is settled at the intervention of the elders. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the FIR now filed before the police against these petitioners.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on the decision in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) to contend that when there is allegation of forgery even if the dispute is settled between the parties, it cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR. I have gone through the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it is alleged that on the basis of the forged power of attorney, sale deeds were got executed. It is also alleged that there was extorion, forgery and fabrication of the documents. Under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Curt held that the allegations found in the FIR are not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties but it involves allegation of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of land to the complainant on the basis of such fabricated power of attorney. Therefore, it was held the FIR that is registered is not liable to be quashed.

In the present case, the facts and circumstances are entirely different. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not at all explained. Moreover, as per the documents made available, the dispute between the parties was settled during 2006 itself. It is not the contention of the complainant that the accused have availed any benefit under the forged document during 2006 or even thereafter. On the other hand, admittedly, the accused have purchased two portions of land under two different registered sale deeds for consideration, that too during 2006. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to accept the contention taken by respondent No.

I find considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioners. Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed as the same is not filed with bonafide intention. Hence, I answer the above point in affirmative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER