AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 25113/2012 on the file of the II Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 563, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of IPC The 2nd petitioner is the father, petitioner No. 1 is the daughter and Petitioner No. 3 is the son, while petitioner No. 4 is stated to be the person in occupation of a portion of the property owned by the 2nd petitioner, as a tenant. The 1st petitioner was married to the respondent herein and their marriage took place on 28.10.2006.
According to the respondent, he gave Talaq to the 1st petitioner, as a result, their marital relationship came to an end. However, the 1st petitioner lodged a report before the jurisdictional police alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Sections- 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short "D.P. Act") against the respondent herein and on the basis of said information, the police registered the case and ultimately, after investigation, filed charge sheet in C.C. No. 13089/2007 on the file of the II Additional C.M.M., Bangalore.
During the trial of that case, a document came to be marked as Ex. P13 to support their allegation that dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to the respondent as demanded by him and that amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was realized by entering into an agreement with the 4th petitioner herein to mortgage a portion of the house property. The learned Magistrate after trial in the said case, by judgment dated 27.11.2012 convicted the respondent for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine. Against the said judgment the respondent filed appeal. In the meanwhile, he lodged a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 469 and 471 of IPC against these petitioners inter alia contending that Ex. P13 produced in C.C. No. 13089/2007 is a fabricated and created document only to seek conviction of the respondent. According to him, after the said document-Ex. P13 was produced, suspecting its genuineness, he made enquiries with the concerned bank, from which the stamp papers have been purchased and came to know that the stamp papers on which Ex. P13 is created, had been issued from the bank on 13.11.2007, while the document is purported to have been executed on 19.10.2006. Therefore, he contended that as on the purported date of the document, the stamp papers on which it is written, had not been released from the bank, as such, it is a created and fabricated document.
The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was presented, on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and also the documents produced, took cognizance of the offences and after recording sworn statement of the complainant, directed registration of the case and ordered issue of summons to these petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented this petition seeking to quash the prosecution launched against them.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials produced along with this petition.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted for the purpose of argument, it may make-out prima facie case only against petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 and since petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 were not parties to the said document, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences against petitioner Nos. 1 & 3. The document, which is alleged to have been fabricated and created was undisputedly produced before the Court in C.C. No. 13089/2007 and it was relied upon by the prosecutrix to support her contention that dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to the respondent herein, as demanded by him. Prima facie, the materials on record at this stage, indicate that the said document was produced by the 1st petitioner while being examined as PW. 1 in that case. No doubt, from the apparent tenor of the document, it is clear that the 2nd petitioner is shown as mortgager while the 4th petitioner is shown as mortgagee in the said document. However, having regard to the fact that the said document was produced by the 1st petitioner during her evidence before the court in that case, at this stage it cannot be said that the 1st petitioner had no knowledge about the said document and its genuineness. Apparently, petitioner Nos. 2 & 4 are the executants of the said document. Petitioner No. 3 is none other than the brother of the 1st petitioner. The reply given by the State Bank of Mysore, Cottonpet Branch, Bangalore, a copy of which is enclosed along with the complaint prima facie indicates that two stamp papers on which the document has been written was issued by the said branch on 13.11.2007, whereas the apparent date of the document is 19.10.2006. Therefore, having regard to the allegations made in the complaint and also the document produced therewith, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance of the offences alleged. The allegations made in the complaint and the documents annexed therein, would prima facie constitute the offences alleged against all these petitioners and therefore, the learned Magistrate is justified in ordering issue of summons to the petitioners. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.