Anil alias Anilkumar and Others - Petitioners @HASH Ganagu Naik and Others

Budihal R.B., J. - Though this matter is listed for admission, but with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying the Court to set-aside the order dated 02.09.2014 passed in Criminal.R.P.57 of 2014 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, and further requested to set-aside the order dated 15.02.2014 passed in C.C.No.52 of 2014 (P.C.No.6 of 2013) by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 200, 207, 465, 472 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed the private complaint in P.C.No.6 of 2013 against the petitioners herein. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of respondent No.1 and petitioner No.2 is the wile of petitioner No.1. In the private complaint filed by respondent No. 1 herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, he made the allegations that in the partition between himself and his brothers, two Sy. Nos. RS 72/1 measuring 11 acres 24 guntas and land in RS No.72/2 measuring 5 acres of Guttargi Village in Sindagi Taluk were fallen to his share. There is also further allegations in the private complaint that taking undue advantage of the absence of respondent No. 1 in the place, petitioners herein have forged the signatures of respondent No. 1 and his wife, and concoted the documents "Watni Shapath Patra" as if the complainant and his wife gave up all rights in favour of the petitioners herein. There is also allegation that they themselves have filed �Watni� before the revenue authorities requesting to enter their names in the said partition "Watni Shapath Patra", even if the notices issued by the revenue officers, the petitioners herein themselves put the signatures forging the signature of respondent No.1 and his wife, as if, they have no objection for entering the name of the petitioners. Therefore, in the private complaint, he alleged that petitioners have committed the alleged offences and action is to be taken against them. After recording sworn statement of the complainant, Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued the process. The said order of the Trial Court has been challenged by the petitioners by preferring Cri .Rev. Petition. No. 57 of 2014 before the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, after hearing the parties passed the considered order. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate Court taking cognizance of the offences on the private complaint and also being aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Crl.R.P.No.57 of 2014, the petitioners are before this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1- complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2-State.

learned counsel for the petitioners herein has submitted that in respect of said matter itself and with the same allegations, the civil suit in Q.S.Mo.5 of 2012 is already pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Sindagi. Hence, it is his contention that when similar allegations are made in the suit, same will be enquired and the reliefs will be granted by the Civil Court. Therefore, there is no necessity to initiate the criminal proceedings by filing the private complaint before the Magistrate Court. He has further submitted that as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C, respondent No.1-complainant herein was supposed to approach the concerned Police and to file the complaint in that regard, but without doing so, he has directly approached the Magistrate Court by filing the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, which is also not permissible under law. It is also his contention that the petitioners herein have not committed the alleged offence, it is respondent No.l and his wife, who have relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, the mutation was prepared by the revenue authorities entering the name of the petitioners to those two lands. Hence, there is no case made out by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners herein and all these aspects were not properly looked into by the Courts below and wrongly proceeded against the petitioners. Hence, submitted to allow the petition and to set-aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - complainant has submitted that respondent and his wife never relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioners herein, but it is the petitioners, who have created false documents by forging the signature of respondent No.1-complainant herein and his wife. It is his contention that, though civil suit is pending before the Civil Court but regarding the criminal offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code are also committed by the present petitioners. Therefore, it is only by filing the criminal complaint, appropriate punishment can be passed against the petitioners. Hence, he has submitted that filing the suit itself is not a remedy. He has also submitted that the Magistrate Court after considering the complaint averments as well as the sworn statement, taken cognizance, which order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the criminal revision petition. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and there are no grounds made out to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and hence, submitted to dismiss the petition.

Learned HCGP representing respondent No.2-State has submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below are well-reasoned order and no illegality has been committed. There is no merit in the petition and hence, same is to be rejected.

I have perused the grounds urged in this petition, so also the orders passed by the Courts below i.e., Magistrate Court taking cognizance and issuing the process, and also the order passed by the HI Addl. Sessions Judge in Cri. Rev. Petition No.57 OF 2014. Considering the orders passed by the Courts below, so also looking to the allegations made in the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., both the Courts were of the opinion that prosecution made out prima-facie case against the petitioners. Now the question is whether such orders passed after considering the entire merits of the case and came to the conclusion that there is material placed by the prosecution whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in this petition?

Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked if the FIR or the complaint does not make out prima-facie case, or initiating proceedings is clear abuse of the process of Court. But looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have considered the matter at length and each and every aspect has been considered and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is prima-facie case made out. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings. No valid and justifiable grounds are made out by the petitioners. Hence, no merits in this petition, accordingly, same is hereby dismissed.