TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereinafter referred to as the 'Second Impugned Order') and dated 24.07.2019 in CRLP No.100549/2018 [2019:KHC-D:5908] (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Impugned Order') passed by two learned Single Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), whereby the High Court allowed the accused-private respondents' petitions under Section 482^1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), consequently quashing the Order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III Court, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the 'JMFC'), insofar as it related to the respective accused-private respondents. BRIEF FACTS: 4. The appellant-complainant lodged a private complaint viz. PCR No.1/2018 before the JMFC against the private respondents under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). 5. The appellant-complainant had filed a suit being O.S. No.43/2009 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property as per oral g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid E-Stamp Paper was fake, as he obtained certified copy(ies) of the Stamp Paper bearing same serial number, which did not tally with the Stamp Paper that was produced before the High Court. 8. The Rent Agreement was executed by accused no.1 in favour of accused no.2, and the appellant alleges that it was ante-dated to show that it came into existence prior to the date of the status quo Order passed by the High Court. 9. It is contended that all the accused, in collusion with one another, created and produced the forged, fabricated and manufactured document to obtain a favourable order and to obtain the possession of the suit property and have also concocted the rent receipts to justify their possession over the property. A complaint was also lodged with Khade Bazar Police Station, Belagavi to enquire about the forgery and concoction of the document. Still, no steps were taken by the police on the said complaint. 10. The appellant later filed a private complaint before the JMFC. The JMFC vide Order dated 18.01.2018 felt that the matter was to be referred for investigation under Section 156(3)^5 of the Code. The JMFC referred the case for investigation to the Khade Bazar P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is held to be in possession over the schedule property. Even though the said finding given by the trial court is under challenge before this court, the fact remains that there are no prima facie materials to contend that the possession of the property was handed over in favour of respondent No.2 by his father at any time. ... xxx 27. It is also pertinent to note that accused No.2 and 5 to 7 who are petitioners herein, are not parties either in O.S.No.43/2009 or in RFA No.4095/2013 before this court. Under such circumstances, respondent No.2 should have made clear about the role played by these petitioners in concocting the document as contented by him and producing the same before the court to take advantage of the same in the first information.' (emphasis supplied) THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS: 13. The primary contention of the appellant is that the Rent Agreement produced by Chandrumal M. Parchani-respondent in collusion with other respondents on an E-Stamp Paper is fake. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that even the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, addressed a letter to the Registrar,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fake E-Stamp Paper and the Sri Gajanana Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, the issuer of the fake E-Stamp Paper. 20. Learned counsel contended that the High Court overlooked Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, holding that criminal proceedings should not be thwarted at the initial stage and the police should be allowed to investigate into the matter and to submit a Final Report, when there are prima facie materials against the accused. 21. Learned counsel pointed towards the conduct of Veena-respondent. It is stated that she has deliberately and intentionally concealed facts regarding the filing of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No.1667-1668/2016 titled 'Meena M. Dongare v Sadiq S/O Bashirahmad Hanchanmani' against the Order dated 07.12.2015 in IA No.1/2023 passed by the High Court. The same was taken up on 01.02.2016, but withdrawn on the first date of listing as under: 'Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. In view thereof, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nos.1 and 3 are different from those against accused nos.2, 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, parity should not be extended to them. 28. Learned counsel submitted that applying the same principles, the Second Impugned Order followed, but the learned Single Judges ought to have remanded the matter as the JMFC's Order dated 18.01.2018 referring the matter for investigation to the police was a curable defect, hit by Section 460^6 of the Code, as it would fall under irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings. 29. Learned counsel submitted that the Second Impugned Order opined that the appellant had not made clear the role played by the accused nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 in concocting and forging the document and concluded that their role, against anybody, including the Court, was unclear, but based on the documents on record, it was evident that the forged E-stamp Paper was purchased by accused no.2. Prayer was made to pass appropriate Order/Judgment, factoring in the submissions noted supra. SUBMISSIONS BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS: 30. It is pertinent to note that learned counsel for the accused-private respondents entered appearance but the private respondents did not file any Counter-A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ock put to the property and re-started the work. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the CPC i.e. I.A.No.1/2015 in R.F.A. No.4095/2013, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against accused nos.1 and 4. Accused no.1 filed a reply to I.A.No.1 of 2015 and produced a document embossed as an E-Stamp Paper dated 20.05.2013, styled as a Rent Agreement and some rent receipts. This Rent Agreement was executed by accused no.1 in favour of accused no.2. The defence taken in the reply to I.A.No.1 of 2015 was that prior to the passing of the status quo order on 03.06.2013, the suit property had already been let out to accused no.2 on 20.05.2013 on rent basis, with a copy of the Rent Agreement also annexed therewith. Further, rent receipts for a monthly rental of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) were also enclosed. We may pause here since this will be a turning point in the present cases. The Rent Agreement by accused no.1 in favour of accused no.2 is said to have been executed on 20.05.2013. However, the Rent Agreement which was produced shows it was executed on E-Stamp Paper bearing no.IN-KA82473995873571L dated 20.05.2013.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3).' (emphasis supplied) 38. In the background of the factual position, the JMFC's Order dated 18.01.2018 cannot be faulted. Enough material is available to justify a full-fledged investigation by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith Section 156 and ending with report or charge-sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at post-cognizance stage and the direction for investigation was for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground to proceed.' (emphasis supplied) 39. Ramdev (supra) was noticed in Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v State of Kerala, (2023) 18 SCC 730. The High Court, especially vide the First Impugned Order, seems to have been unduly swayed by the usage of the term 'further' by the JMFC. The relevant extract from the First Impugned Order has already been quoted hereinabove. It would be in the fitness of things to note the JMFC's Order dated 18.01.2018: '... On perusal of the private complaint, it is noticed that the aforesaid case needs to be further investigated by the police. Hence, this Court feels that the aforesaid case needs to be referred under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the above matter is referred to Khade Bazar P.S. for investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. ...' (emphasis supplied) 40. The afore-extract leaves no room of doubt that the JMFC had referred the matter to police under Section 156(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.' (emphasis supplied) 43. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the First and Second Impugned Orders dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021 are set aside. FIR Crime No.12 of 2018, Khade Bazar Police Station stands restored. The police is directed to investigate the case expeditiously in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the private parties shall be at liberty to produce material to indicate their defence(s)/position during the police investigation as also before the Court concerned, in accordance with law, at the appropriate stage. 44. Before parting, it is made clear that the observations made in this Judgment are only for the purposes of considering the issue(s) before us and shall neither prejudice nor aid the parties in any proceedings pending inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree.' 3. '151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.' 4. '2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.-(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, ....