Shakuntala vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in PS Crime No.0008/2014 on the file of the Chikkodi police, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the basis of a private complaint in PC No.230/2013 on the file of the Prl. JMFC, Chikkodi, being referred to for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The allegations made in the FIR are that the informant Shakuntala-respondent No.2 claims that she is the wife of Bharma @ Bharmappa Badiger of Umrani village, in Chikkodi taluk and she is the absolute owner of the property bearing TMC No.1416 of Chikkodi and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is alleged that the petitioner herein-(the accused in the said private complaint) claimed herself as wife of Bharamappa Badiger, claiming the said property as she is the owner of the said property. By playing fraud and impersonating the complainant, went along with the husband of the complainant by name Bharma, they jointly went to the Chikkodi Urban Cooperation Bank, Chikkodi and the petitioner presented herself as respondent No.2 produced the documents pertaining to the said property impersonating the respondent No.2, produced the records for the purpose of obtaining the loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- by her husband Bharma. It is also alleged that the petitioner and Bharma together executed a false documents and signed the false documents particularly the accused singed the documents as if she is the respondent No.2. The complainant has made such allegations and the learned Magistrate after going through the allegations in the complaint, referred the matter to the police for investigation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade him that there are Civil suits pending before the Civil Court, in which the respondent No.2 herein has claimed the ownership over the property by means of filing a declaratory suit. Therefore, at this stage, it is a counter blast to the said suit, as such the continuation of the prosecution would amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, he claimed for quashing of the said proceedings. The learned Magistrate in fact has referred the complaint to the police and police have registered a case and started the investigation. The investigation is still in threshold. Whether the petitioner has impersonated respondent No.1 or not, whether the documents pertaining to the said property is in the name of the respondent No.2 and whether she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property, all those facts have to be thrashed out in civil a case, but, the question of impersonation has to be examined in a criminal proceedings that has to be thrashed out by means of due investigation by the police. At this stage, this Court while exercising the powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot scuttle the investigation, once, it is referred to the police. Normally, the Court should not interfere with the investigation, unless it is shown to the Court that there is a legal bar for the investigation itself or the clear cut. materials on record that the continuation of the prosecution and the investigation itself amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. When these two materials are not available, in my opinion, the Court cannot appreciate the documentary and any oral evidence on record and come to its own conclusion while writing a judgment in favour of either of the parties. In fact, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, has guided the High Courts as to what should be done when the matter is pending for investigation, which reads this:

Quashing of a charge is an exception to the Rule of continuance of prosecution. Where offence is even broadly satisfied the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution, rather than its quashing on that initial stage. The Court is not expected to any martial facts, record, with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records, but, he has opinion form by prima facie.

When the learned Magistrate prima facie found that the matter requires to be investigated by the police, in my opinion, such order of the Magistrate and the further investigation cannot be disturbed by this Court.

Having come to such conclusion, one more thing has to be dealt with if the petitioner has got sufficient materials and documentary materials in her favour she can as well produce those documents before the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer after finding of truth or otherwise of the complaint averment, he can file appropriate report before the Court. Even if any charge sheet is filed by the police, the Court has to look into the contents of the charge sheet. If any cognizance is taken on the basis of the charge sheet, still the petitioner has got an opportunity to challenge the same before the Court by means of pleading for discharge. With these observations, I am of the opinion the petition has to be dismissed of.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.