1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.527 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI SRI SHIVALINGANANDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PRESIDENT, KURU KABEERANANDA ASHRAM TRUST, KURUVINAKATTE, NEAR AKKACHAMMANA BHAVI, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. PETITIONER (BY SRI: B.V.ACHARYA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI: K N PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND SRI A YESHWANTHA RAO BHONSLE S/O LATE ANNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.4/872/1, 12TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560019. RESPONDENT (BY SRI: V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/[SECTION] CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2014 IN [CASE NUMBER] ([CASE NUMBER]) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2015 IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in [CASE NUMBER] whereby the revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the XXIV ACMM, Bangalore dated 27.11.2014 in [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] has been confirmed.
2. Respondent filed a complaint under [SECTION] [ACT], seeking action against petitioner (accused No.1) and others for the alleged offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]. On recording the sworn statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner herein and other accused. The same was challenged before the revisional court under [SECTION] [ACT], and by the impugned order dated 07.12.2015, the revision petition has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the petitioner and other accused.
3. The contention of Sri.[ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that, the dispute raised by respondent is civil in nature. The complainant has filed a suit in [CASE NUMBER] on the very same allegations made in the complaint. The grievance of the complainant relates to the execution of the gift deed and the subsequent rectification deed. The same does not make out the ingredients of criminal offences and hence, initiation of criminal action against the petitioner is illegal and an abuse of process of court.
4. Disputing the contentions, learned counsel for respondent has argued in support of the impugned action, contending that the averments made in the complaint and the materials produced in support thereof clearly make out the ingredients of the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]. Both the courts below having accepted the case of the complainant, there is no reason to quash the proceedings on the purported plea set up by the petitioner, which is required to be substantiated only during trial and thus, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully scrutinized the material on record.
6. The case of the complainant as spelt out in the private complaint is that, his ancestor Sri.[ENTITY] had executed a gift deed on 15.05.1968 conveying the same to Smt.[ENTITY] for the purpose of carrying out certain religious obligations. Instead of effectuating the objects of gift deed, a document dated 24.05.1988 was fabricated by impersonating the aforesaid Smt.[ENTITY] as well as the donor Sri.[ENTITY]. Subsequently, a deed of rectification dated 02.12.2004 was registered, forging the signatures of aforesaid Sri.[ENTITY] and Smt.[ENTITY] eventhough both of them were dead by then.
7. These allegations undoubtedly make out the ingredients of the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]. No doubt, as submitted by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, complainant has already invoked civil jurisdiction seeking to set aside the aforesaid registered deed. But, that by itself does not extinguish the jurisdiction of the agencies constituted under the Code from investigating or inquiring into the allegation as long as allegation disclose elements of criminal offence.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], in para 26, has held as under:-
"26. This further raises a question as to the wrongs which become actionable in accordance with law. It may be purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or a civil wrong as also a criminal offence constituting both on the same set of facts. But if the records disclose commission of a criminal offence and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the Court will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent or original jurisdiction. In [PRECEDENT], this Court took the similar view and upheld the order of the High Court declining to quash the criminal proceedings because a civil contract between the parties was pending."
In view of the above factual and legal position, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
As it is submitted that petitioner has not yet obtained bail, trial Court may consider bail application, if any, moved by the petitioner on the same day and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.
JUDGE Bss