SHYLAJA R. HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this court seeking for quashing of the order dated 30.10.2017 by virtue of which the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri took cognizance and issued process in C.C.No.113/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 177, 197, 198, 199, 200, 120(b)(2), 420, read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that reading of the complaint does not disclose any allegation made against the petitioners herein. The offence as such alleged is regarding the fabrication and forgery of certain documents towards which the petitioners are not party nor have the petitioners directly received any benefits. On these grounds, he submits that there is no offence made out against the petitioners. If at all any offence is made out that is as against the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 who expired on 24.11.2014 and hence, complaint cannot be prosecuted.

(3.) Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand would submit that petitioners have earlier approached this Court seeking for quashing of the very same order of cognizance by filing Crl.P.No.7718/2017 wherein the petitioners herein were petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein. In the said matter the petitioners have filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the petition insofar as they are concerned seeking for liberty. However, this Court permitted for withdrawal specifically refusing liberty. In view of the same, Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel submits that on this ground itself the above petition would have to be dismissed since having withdrawn the first petition and no liberty having been granted, the petitioners cannot once again file the present petition agitating the very same grounds and or challenging the very same order. He further submitted that the petitioners had challenged the order of cognizance in Crl.R.P.No.61/2018 before the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2020 and the said Court confirmed the cognizance taken against the petitioners, however, providing liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., claiming for discharge. On these two grounds Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the above proceedings are not maintainable and ought to be dismissed.