KAMALANJANAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to the these petitions are that one raja satish who is the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore, alleging that the petitioners 1 to 4 executed registered sale deeds in the office of the sub-registrar alienating certain shop premises in favour of the purchasers. It is also alleged that the owner nagarathnamma w/o late raja chetty who is the grand-mother of this complainant was bed ridden prior to 1991. She was unable to execute any deed. It is also further alleged that these petitioners who are the accused before the court somehow managed to get the sale deed with the help of a lady who is unknown to the complainant by paying certain amount who impersonated the said nagarathnamma thereby they committed the offence punishable under sections 474, 420, 511 read with sections 120-b and 201, ipc. The said complaint was registered as pcr No. 1938 of 1993 on 23-11-1993. The learned magistrate referred the case to the police and the seshadripuram police registered a case in cr. No. 50 of 1993 and submitted fir to the court on 16-3-1994. The police filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under sections 468, 471, 419, 420, 120-b read with Section 34, IPC against 8 accused persons. Thereafter, the court 'has taken' cognizance of the offence and directed to issue process. It appears on 13-11-1995 accused nos. 7 and 8 filed application under sections 317 and 70 (2), Cr. P. C. and other accused remained absent. On 1-12-1995 all the accused persons filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which is registered as cr. P. No. 2720 of 1995. Similarly, almost on identical grounds, the same complainant filed another complaint before the magistrate under Section 200, Cr. P. C. which was registered in pcr 102 of 1995 and the case was referred to basavanagudi police station under Section 156 (3) for investigation as per Order dated 10-3-1995. On 14-3-1995 the basavanagudi police registered a case in cr, No. 87 of 1995 and submitted fir on 14-3-1995. Subsequently, after investigation the police filed charge-sheet on 6-11-1995 for the offences punishable under sections 465, 464, 468, 471, 420, 34 read with Section 120-b, ipc. The magistrate has taken cognizance and directed issue of summons to the accused persons. In response to those summons, except a-4 all other accused persons appeared before the trial court and offered bail. Thereafter, all the 6 accused persons filed petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in cr. P. No. 2789 of 1995. Detailed facts are not necessary in these cases. Suffice it to add that on the basis of the investigation conducted by the police and on charge-sheet being filed by them, the learned magistrate proceeded to issue process to the accused persons and the same is questioned in these two petitions. After hearing both sides, this common Order is passed. Retain a copy of this Order in each file.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that no offence is made out as against these petitioners. Further, even if offences are made out, those offences according to the allegations in the complaint would come under sections 177 and 182 of the Indian penal code. Those offences as the allegations in the complaint would indicate that the sale deed was obtained by impersonating one nagarathnamma by some lady and false sale deeds were obtained. No court can take cognizance of the offence in respect of these offences on complaint filed by a private party as it is hit by Section 195, Cr. P. C. the police filed the charge-sheet against the aforesaid offences with a view to avoid the mischief of Section 195, Cr. P. C. which is impermissible and therefore, these petitions may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed.