MALLIKARJUNA M vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & Anr

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No.2 and also the learned HCGP. Perused the records.

The petitioner''s counsel has strenuously submits that, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 in FIR No.323/2016 on the file of Halebeedu

Police Station. He contends before the court that, a false case has been foisted against him and it is also contended that the allegations made in the

said FIR do not constitute any offence alleged against the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contends before the court that, the complaint has been filed on 19.12.2016 and the Police

have almost investigated the matter and collected materials in this particular case.

The learned HCGP submits that the investigation is in progress.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, on perusal of the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 it is noticed that, the 2nd Respondent has

made allegations against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 473 r/w. 149 of

IPC. It is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that, the property measuring 1 acre 13 guntas bearing Sy. No. 7/6 situated at Chattanahalli

Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, belonged to the 2nd respondent and his family members and the same was given to

Accused No.1-Ramegowda, for the purpose of cultivation. Taking advantage of the same, he colluded with the Revenue Officials including the

petitioner (A2)- Mallikarjuna herein and created lot of documents in favour of himself [Rame Gowda (A1)]. It is also contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, the petitioner (A2) after looking into the materials on record, rejected the application filed by Rame Gowda

(A1) for change of katha. However, the petitioner has also produced Xerox copies of various documents viz., RTC extracts and other documents

before this court.

When the allegations are made that the petitioner (A2) has been indulged in creating the documents along with Accused No.1 in respect of said

Survey No.7/6 and there is serious allegation that forgeries have been committed by the petitioner (A2) and as well as Accused No.1. Further

added to that, there are allegations that even the petitioner and another have gone to the extent of creating death certificate of a person alive etc.

In the above facts and circumstances, it is seen that the matter is still at thresh hold ie., at FIR stage. However, a reading of FIR broadly makes-

out a case for the purpose of investigation, therefore, it is too premature to interfere with such complaint/FIR.

The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the circular issued by the Director General of Police, directing the Police officers

that before registering the FIR against the Revenue Officers, they can make an enquiry with regard to the truth or falsity of the allegation/s made

against them. However, such direction/circulars cannot over-ride the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and such directions/circulars even

cannot restrict the Police from registering case and enquiring into the matter. It is a well recognized principal of law as set down by the Hon''ble

Apex Court in LALITHA KUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [(2014) 2 SCC 1] that, when a complaint

is lodged, where the complaint or the FIR received disclose cognizable offence, the Police have no other go except to register a case and proceed

with the investigation. Further added to that, in this case registration of FIR was on 19.12.2016. By this time, the Police might have laid their hands

in collecting materials. Therefore, at this stage, without looking into the investigation materials, it is not proper for this court to quash the FIR.

Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the FIR. However, it is

made clear that, after investigation, if any adverse report is filed against the petitioner without any basis, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the

court once again in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the petition is dismissed.

In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application

stands disposed of.