Dr. Abdul Jaleel Khan and Others Vs. Rajendra - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 195(1)(b) (ii) (iii), section 200, section 340, section 197, section 195, section 482 indian penal code, 1860 - section 420 read with section 120-b, section 465 read with section 120-b, section 466 read with section 120-b, 467 read with section 120-b, section 468 read with section 120-b, and section 471 read with section 120-b - land acquisition act, 1894 - karnataka universities act, 1976 section 79 - commission of forgery extinguish of right over property plaintiff/respondent filed application to file complaint under section 340 of cr p.c. against petitioner/university and its officials for offences punishable under sections 192, 193, 195, 463, 468 and 471 of i.p.c. alleging that university and its officials in conspiracy prepared forged documents for acquisition of land possessed by plaintiff - court held - earlier order passed by trial court made it clear that document mentioned in complaint and allegation of complainant that they were forged fabricated, antedated - so, bar under section 195(1)(b) (ii) (iii) of cr p.c. will not be applicable - materials placed on record, so also sworn statement of complainant pw1 allegations in the complaint and documents produced by complainant prima facie goes to show that respondent/complainant has made out a prima facie case as against petitioners about their involvement in committing alleged offences so, trial court followed correct procedure in registering case and ordering for issuance of process - petitions dismissed para 8 (prayer: these criminal petitions are filed u/s 482 cr.p.c. seeking to set aside the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the principal civil judge and principal jmfc, dharwad in c.c.no.250/2010 (p.c.no.49/2004) thereby directing registration of criminal case against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 r/w section 120-b of ipc and further directing issuance of process to the petitioners consequently quash the entire proceedings. these petitions coming on for final hearing, having been heard and reserved for orders on 25.04.2017, this day the court, made the following:) 1. these are the petitions filed by petitioners/accused under section 482 of the cr.p.c., praying the court to set aside the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the principal civil judge and j.m.f.c., dharwad in c.c.no.250/2010 (p.c.no.49/2004), which was registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 r/w section 120b of i.p.c. and issuance of process to the petitioners/accused and consequently sought quashing of the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in the petitions that, respondent/complainant filed o.s.no.490/1996 on the file of civil judge (jr.dn), dharwad for perpetual injunction against the defendant/ karnataka university dharwad praying thereby to restrain the defendants from causing any interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property held by the plaintiff. the defendant/ karnataka university dharwad entered appearance in the said suit and filed written statement contending that government of bombay in 1947 acquired cts no.82/a-1 corresponding to r.s.no.2/b and 3/b of saptapur for karnataka college and had put karnataka college in its possession. later the government of bombay transferred the said acquired land to karnataka college and after reorganization of the states, the successive government of mysore, in 1958 transferred the karnataka college and its properties to karnataka university and since then the karnataka university is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. it was also contended in the written statement that the change of cts no.80 to cts no.82/1a1/a by court's order on i.a.no.1 in o.s.no.77/1994 is collusive and the same was not binding on it since karnataka university was not a party to that suit. in the said suit o.s.no.490/1996, the karnataka university made a counter claim for issuing permanent injunction against plaintiff on the ground that legally and factually the karnataka university was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for many years and the plaintiffs themselves were disturbing its possession. in order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein the respondent got examined four witnesses and got marked documents ex.p1 to p122. on the other hand, karnataka university dharwad examined five witnesses and got marked documents at ex.d1 to d86. plaintiff/respondent herein filed i.a.no.4 and i.a.no.28 requesting the court to file complaint under section 340 of cr.p.c. against the karnataka university dharwad and its officials for the offences punishable under sections 192, 193, 195, 463, 468 and 471 of i.p.c. alleging that the university and its officials in conspiracy prepared forged documents and produced them in the said case to falsely support the university's contentions. the said i.a.no.4 and 28 in o.s.no.490/1996 were not decided by court. however, on 19.07.2002 the court ordered for return of plaint to the plaintiff/respondent herein and the counter claim to defendant/ karnataka university dharwad on the point of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the land acquisition act as the suit involved the decision of the illegally of the acquisition proceedings of the suit property. the respondent herein challenged the judgment and order dated 19.07.2002 in misc.appeal no.35/2002 and in the said appeal also on 05.02.2003 respondent herein filed i.a.no.8 for filing complaint against karnataka university dharwad and its officials. even though said i.a.no.8 was pending therein, on 03.03.2004 respondent herein filed private complaint no.49/2004, which was later registered as c.c.no.7/2005 alleging that the accused nos.1 to 18 had conspired together to defeat the plaintiff's rights over the suit property and in pursuance of it and as per instructions of accused nos.1, 5, 12 and 14 forged certified copy and accused no.12 produced it in court and accused no.15 forged original documents and accused no.16 fraudulently produced them in court. so all the accused committed offences under section 120-b, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 r/w section 34 of the i.p.c. the learned magistrate by his order dated 01.01.2005 was pleased to register the case for the alleged offences. said proceedings were challenged by the petitioners and other accused before this court in criminal petition no.721/2005 and criminal petition no.800/2005 and this court by its order dated 06.02.2009 was pleased to set aside the order of issuance of process and remitted the matter back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. after remittal the court on enquiry proceeded once again to record the sworn statement of the respondent and by taking erroneous view of the facts and circumstances of the case by order dated 03.05.2010 mechanically directed registration of case against the petitioners and other accused persons and further directed issuance of process. therefore, being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.05.2010 the petitioners/accused are before this court in this criminal petition challenging the legality and correctness of the said order on the grounds as mentioned in the petition at ground no.i to xii. 3. heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant. 4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his argument made the submission that the registration of the case and the issuance of the process by the order of the learned magistrate are contrary to law, facts and materials placed on record and they are liable to be set aside. the reasons assigned by the court below while registering the case and order for issuance of the process are unsustainable in law. the order, which is challenged in this petition is capricious, arbitrary, perverse and it suffers from legal infirmity and flawlessness. 5. it is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint are bald, vague and even if the allegations are taken to be true for the purpose of appreciation of the case, even then those allegations will not make out prima facie case against any of the petitioners herein. the learned counsel also made the submission that the learned magistrate without application of judicial mind mechanically proceeded in the matter and passed the order for issuance of the process, which is illegal and it has no legal basis at all. counsel further made the submission that the respondent herein filed the applications i.a.no.4 and 28 in o.s.no.490/1996 and also filed i.a.no.8 in m.a.no.35/2002 seeking initiation of the criminal proceedings under section 340 of the cr.p.c. he made the submission that as per section 195 of the cr.p.c. no court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned thereunder except upon the complaint made by the court. hence, it is his submission that as the court trying the suit o.s.no.490/1996 and the appellate court dealing with m.a.no.35/2002 have not at all lodged such complaint and hence the learned magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. counsel further made the submission that learned magistrate has not at all taken into consideration section 79 of the karnataka universities act before passing the impugned order and the learned magistrate totally ignored that sanction under section 197 of the cr.p.c. was required for prosecution of the employees of the university. he also made the submission that even looking to the sworn statement of the complainant before the learned magistrate it will not make out the case and it will not make out when and how the alleged offences have been committed and it is only the bald and vague allegations are made against the petitioners herein. it is also his contention that as the complainant/respondent herein did not get any relief in the said suit with the malafide intention he filed the criminal case before the magistrate court. the petitioners are totally innocent and they have not at all committed the alleged offences. only to humiliate and harass the petitioners and other officials of the karnataka university dharwad, false complaint has been filed by the complainant. learned counsel also made the submission that in the year 1947 itself the bombay government acquired two lands bearing cts no.80/b and cts no.82/a- 1b and in 1947 itself possession was taken by the government and owner of the said land sought for enhancement of compensation amount. counsel further made the submission that brothers of the owner of the land filed suit o.s.no.77/1994 which was filed by one mohan vishnupanth seeking possession and separate possession. he also made the submission that sy.no.80a cannot be identified at all. counsel also submitted that when show-cause notice was issued to the city survey officer, the city survey officer deleted the earlier cts number without there being any order of the court. he also made the submission that the measurement as mentioned in the acquisition proceedings and the measurement spoken in the sworn statement of the complainant in respect of the acquired properties are tallying. counsel further made the submission that change of cts numbers of property is because of the fraud played by the complainant himself. hence, he submitted that even perusing the entire materials produced by the complainant, it will not make out a prima facie case against any of the petitioners and it is only the abuse of process of the court and the complaint filed with malafide intention. hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 6. per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant during the course of his argument made the submission that the counter claim of the defendant in the suit came to be dismissed and it becomes final as it was not at all challenged before the higher forum. counsel made the submission that there is no change of the property number as alleged by the petitioners. he submitted that the petitioners in collusion with each other have forged the documents in order to grab the property and in this regard he made the submission by drawing the attention of the court to document nos.4 to 9 of annexure-15. document no.15 of annexure-15, document no.9 to 18 of annexure-2, he also made the submission that with regard to passing of the order by the special deputy commissioner as relied upon by the petitioners, there was no such post of special deputy commissioner at all. learned counsel further made the submission that even before acquisition of the property, forged documents were created by the petitioners. he draw the attention of this court to documents dated 26.02.1999 produced as per annexure-6 and documents no.2 to 7 of annexure-1 and document no.26 as per annexure-9. he also draw the attention of the court to para no.36, 43, 45 and 52 of the private complaint and made the submission that these paragraphs and the averments therein clearly makes out the prima facie case as against the petitioners/accused. it is also his contention that documents produced by the petitioners cannot be looked into at this stage. hence, the counsel submitted that looking to the documents produced by the respondent/ complainant, coupled with the allegations in the private complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant, there is a prima facie case as against the present petitioners. he also draw the attention of this court to the earlier order dated 6th day of february 2009 passed by this court in criminal petition no.721/2005 c/w criminal petition no.800/2005 and draw the attention of this court to the relevant paragraphs in the said order made the submission that the order also clearly goes to show that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners but as the procedure was not correctly followed by the learned magistrate and there were some irregularities in recording the sworn statement the matter was remitted back to the trial court. hence the counsel submitted that the allegations of the complainant are supported by the documentary evidence and hence there is a material to proceed with the case and it is not a case to invoke section 482 of cr.p.c. and to quash the entire criminal proceedings as against the present petitioners. hence, he submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, same may be rejected. in support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant relied upon the following decisions. sl. no.citationrelevant para1ravindra kumar v/s m/s pugmini air 2009 s.c. 2383152rumugam v/s kuttur air 2009 s.c. 34117 and 203narayan das v/s state of karnataka 2004 crl.l.j. 822 (sc)64shivjee singh v/s nagendra tiwari air 2011 s.c.226195ajay kumar das v/s state of jharkhand air 2011 s.c. 3652116iqbal singh marah v/s meenakshi marawah, air 2005 s.c. 2119247kamaladevi v/s state of west bengal 2001 crl.l.j. 4733 (sc)9 and 178rumi dhar v/s state of west bengal air 2009 s.c. 2195189gopalkrishnan v/s addl.s.p. bangalore air 2009 s.c. 201517, 18 and 2010centre for public interest litigation v/s union of india air 2005 s.c.4413911raj kishor roy v/s pandey 2002 crl.l.j. 3780 (s.c.)1112sultana v/s state of west bengal air 2009 s.c. 140414 and 1713shamboonath mishra v/s state of u.p. 1997 crl.l.j. 2491 (sc)4 and 5 7. i have perused the averments made in the petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. the contents of the private complaint in p.c.no.49/2004 on the file of chief judicial magistrate, dharwad produced as per annexure-a, order dated 3rd day of may 2010 passed by the principal civil judge and principal j.m.f.c., dharwad ordering to register a criminal case against accused nos.1 to 14 and issuance of summons in respect of the offences which have been already mentioned above. so also the sworn statement of pw1 dated 14.04.2010 and i have also perused the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant which are referred above and the documents produced by the petitioner before the trial court as the original file itself is secured and placed before this court, so also i have perused the documents which were kept in the sealed cover in the high court registry which were secured during the course of hearing the arguments of both the sides and also considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides at the bar. 8. before coming to the merits of the case it is noticed that even earlier the court took cognizance of the offences as against the petitioners and other accused persons by passing the order in pcr no.49/2004 (c.c.no.7/2005) on the file of the principal civil judge (jr.dn) and j.m.f.c., dharwad. said order was challenged by the petitioners/accused in two criminal petitions i.e. criminal petition no.721/2005 c/w 800/2005, before this court and this court by passing the order dated 6th day of february 2009 allowed the criminal petitions and remitted back the matter to the concerned magistrate court directing the magistrate court to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. the said order passed by this court dated 6th day of february 2009 was challenged before the hon'ble apex court in the special leave petition (crl.) no.776/2012 preferred by respondent/complainant as against the accused persons. but looking to the order dated 29th april 2014, the special leave petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn and the matter was disposed of on 29.04.2014 vacating the say which was granted earlier. after remanding the matter to the trial court, the trial court after recording the sworn statement of pw1 passed the order dated 3rd day of may 2010 wherein the trial court took cognizance of the offences by ordering to register the criminal case and ordered to issue summons to the petitioners and other accused persons which order has been challenged in this petition. looking to the materials placed on record, they goes to show that respondent/complainant herein filed the suit o.s.no.490/1996 against karnataka university dharwad seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property described in the said suit bearing cts no.82/1a1a/1 measuring 1 acre 25 gunts 2.8/9 sq. yards situated at saptapur, dharwad, which was said to have been inherited by the plaintiff from one v.r.dharwadkar. the further averments that in pursuance of the gazette notification dated 24.03.1947 and 16.09.1947, the land bearing cts no.82/1a measuring 30 guntas, 96.5/6 sq.yards and cts no.80 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas 21.79 sq.yards situated at saptapur, dharwad were acquired under land acquisition act for karnataka college, dharwad and after khp sej no.2 dated 30.10.1953 the land acquired by kcd was renumbered as r.s.no.2b. it is further contention of the respondent/ complainant that the suit property was not part of any acquisition proceedings and it was not part of r.s.no.2b. the further allegation by the respondent/complainant that accused nos.1 to 10 initially entered into criminal conspiracy with the main object of extinguishing the plaintiff's right over the suit property claimed in o.s.no.490/1996 and to create absolute right to karnataka university dharwad over the suit property and thereby intended to defeat the right of the plaintiff in that suit and to achieve that object accused nos.1 to 10 dishonestly, fraudulently decided to establish that property acquired under the gazette notification dated 24.03.1947 and 16.09.1947 under land acquisition act belonged to v.r.dharwadkar and also that the property acquired was situated to the south of one s.s.jamkhandi's property and the suit property has been converted into botanical garden and it forms part of r.s.no.2b, which was transferred to karnataka university dharwad. the further allegation that accused no.2 in order to substantiate their dishonest and fraudulent claim produced several forged, fabricated and antedated documents, which documents as per the complaint averments are document nos.2 to 7 as mentioned in para no.11 page no.15 of the complaint shown at sl.nos.(a) to (f). perusing the earlier order passed by this court dated 6th day of february 2009, this court also while passing the said order made it clear that the document nos.2 to 7 as mentioned in the complaint the allegation of the complainant that they were forged fabricated, antedated and then the accused persons produced those documents in the suit in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. therefore, this court has held that the bar under section 195(1)(b) (ii) (iii) of cr.p.c. will not be applicable to the said case. but looking to the order of this court passed on the earlier occasion while exercising jurisdiction under 482 of cr.p.c. the order taking cognizance and issuance of a process was ordered to be set aside not because that there is no prima facie case as against the accused persons, but it was because of the specific reasons assigned by this court that while recording the sworn statement of the complaint, the procedure contemplated under section 200 of the cr.p.c. was not correctly followed by the trial court. the reason for such observation by this court, the court made it clear that the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded in part and thereafterwards the affidavit of the complaint was filed with regard to the remaining portion and on such material the trial court took cognizance and ordered for issuance of the process. hence, this court held that the said procedure is against the provisions of section 200 of the cr.p.c. and hence remitted back the matter to the trial court to follow the procedure correctly and to take further steps afresh in accordance with law. now looking to the materials placed on record, so also the sworn statement of the complainant pw1 the allegations in the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant as per annexures-i to xi prima facie they goes to show that the respondent/complainant has made out a prima facie case as against the petitioners herein about their involvement in committing the alleged offences. looking to the order taking cognizance by the trial court the court has elaborately considered the matter taking each and every aspect of the case into consideration passed a detailed order for taking cognizance of the offences as against the petitioners and other accused persons. the order passed by the trial court ordering to register a criminal case against accused nos.1 to 14 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 120b of the i.p.c. and ordered for issuance of summons to the said accused persons. looking to the said order passed by the trial court even the court has considered the aspect of sanction as per section 197 of the cr.p.c. so far as accused nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 they being the government servants. even on that aspect also the trial court discussed the matter in detail and opined that obtaining prior sanction as required under section 197 cr.p.c. is not required in view of discussion made and the opinion arrived at by the learned trial judge. 9. i have also perused the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent herein looking to the principles enunciated in the said decisions also, i am of the opinion that the trial court followed the correct procedure and after considering the materials placed before it rightly comes to the conclusion in registering the case and ordering for issuance of the process. there is no illegality committed by the trial court in coming to such conclusion nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in passing such order. even perusing the complaint averments against each and every accused person there are detailed allegations made about committing the alleged offences, and even in the sworn statement of pw1 he has deposed in detail on oath before the trial court and perusing the documents produced by the respondent/complainant, the averments in the complaint so also the sworn statement of pw1 are supported by the documents produced by the complainant/ respondent herein. therefore, on an evaluation of the factual matrix of the case with the documents produced and also taking into consideration the sworn statement and the complaint averments the trial court comes to a right conclusion. looking to these materials placed on record at this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint averments will not make out a prima facie case as against any of the petitioners herein and it is only the abuse of process of the court. this court while exercising its power under section 482 of the cr.p.c. has to examine the materials whether they make out a prima facie case against the petitioners/ accused or it is only the abuse of process of the court. looking to the materials placed on record so also the principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent herein, i am of the clear opinion that it is not a case to hold that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners or it is the abuse of process of the court. the order passed by the trial court ordering for registering the criminal case against the petitioners and other accused persons and ordering for issuance of the process is supported by sound and valid reasons. there are no grounds for this court to interfere into the said order of the trial court either to set aside or modify the said order. there is no merit in the criminal petitions filed. accordingly, same are hereby dismissed.

Judgment:

(Prayer: These Criminal Petitions are filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the Order Dated 03.05.2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad in C.C.No.250/2010 (P.C.No.49/2004) thereby directing registration of criminal case against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and further directing issuance of process to the petitioners consequently quash the entire proceedings.

These petitions coming on for final hearing, having been heard and reserved for orders on 25.04.2017, this day the Court, made the following:)

1. These are the petitions filed by petitioners/accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying the Court to set aside the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Dharwad in C.C.No.250/2010 (P.C.No.49/2004), which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120B of I.P.C. and issuance of process to the petitioners/accused and consequently sought quashing of the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in the petitions that, respondent/complainant filed O.S.No.490/1996 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Dharwad for perpetual injunction against the defendant/ Karnataka University Dharwad praying thereby to restrain the defendants from causing any interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property held by the plaintiff. The defendant/ Karnataka University Dharwad entered appearance in the said suit and filed written statement contending that Government of Bombay in 1947 acquired CTS No.82/A-1 corresponding to R.S.No.2/B and 3/B of Saptapur for Karnataka College and had put Karnataka College in its possession. Later the Government of Bombay transferred the said acquired land to Karnataka College and after reorganization of the States, the successive Government of Mysore, in 1958 transferred the Karnataka College and its properties to Karnataka University and since then the Karnataka University is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was also contended in the written statement that the change of CTS No.80 to CTS No.82/1A1/A by court's order on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.77/1994 is collusive and the same was not binding on it since Karnataka University was not a party to that suit. In the said suit O.S.No.490/1996, the Karnataka University made a counter claim for issuing permanent injunction against plaintiff on the ground that legally and factually the Karnataka University was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for many years and the plaintiffs themselves were disturbing its possession. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein the respondent got examined four witnesses and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P122. On the other hand, Karnataka University Dharwad examined five witnesses and got marked documents at Ex.D1 to D86. Plaintiff/respondent herein filed I.A.No.4 and I.A.No.28 requesting the court to file complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against the Karnataka University Dharwad and its officials for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 193, 195, 463, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. alleging that the University and its officials in conspiracy prepared forged documents and produced them in the said case to falsely support the university's contentions. The said I.A.No.4 and 28 in O.S.No.490/1996 were not decided by Court. However, on 19.07.2002 the Court ordered for return of plaint to the plaintiff/respondent herein and the counter claim to defendant/ Karnataka University Dharwad on the point of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as the suit involved the decision of the illegally of the acquisition proceedings of the suit property. The respondent herein challenged the judgment and order dated 19.07.2002 in Misc.Appeal No.35/2002 and in the said appeal also on 05.02.2003 respondent herein filed I.A.No.8 for filing complaint against Karnataka University Dharwad and its officials. Even though said I.A.No.8 was pending therein, on 03.03.2004 respondent herein filed private complaint No.49/2004, which was later registered as C.C.No.7/2005 alleging that the accused Nos.1 to 18 had conspired together to defeat the plaintiff's rights over the suit property and in pursuance of it and as per instructions of accused Nos.1, 5, 12 and 14 forged certified copy and accused No.12 produced it in Court and accused No.15 forged original documents and accused No.16 fraudulently produced them in Court. So all the accused committed offences under Section 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 01.01.2005 was pleased to register the case for the alleged offences. Said proceedings were challenged by the petitioners and other accused before this Court in Criminal Petition No.721/2005 and Criminal Petition No.800/2005 and this Court by its order dated 06.02.2009 was pleased to set aside the order of issuance of process and remitted the matter back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. After remittal the Court on enquiry proceeded once again to record the sworn statement of the respondent and by taking erroneous view of the facts and circumstances of the case by order dated 03.05.2010 mechanically directed registration of case against the petitioners and other accused persons and further directed issuance of process. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.05.2010 the petitioners/accused are before this Court in this criminal petition challenging the legality and correctness of the said order on the grounds as mentioned in the petition at ground No.i to xii.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his argument made the submission that the registration of the case and the issuance of the process by the order of the learned Magistrate are contrary to law, facts and materials placed on record and they are liable to be set aside. The reasons assigned by the court below while registering the case and order for issuance of the process are unsustainable in law. The order, which is challenged in this petition is capricious, arbitrary, perverse and it suffers from legal infirmity and flawlessness.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint are bald, vague and even if the allegations are taken to be true for the purpose of appreciation of the case, even then those allegations will not make out prima facie case against any of the petitioners herein. The learned counsel also made the submission that the learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind mechanically proceeded in the matter and passed the order for issuance of the process, which is illegal and it has no legal basis at all. Counsel further made the submission that the respondent herein filed the applications I.A.No.4 and 28 in O.S.No.490/1996 and also filed I.A.No.8 in M.A.No.35/2002 seeking initiation of the criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. He made the submission that as per Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. no Court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned thereunder except upon the complaint made by the Court. Hence, it is his submission that as the Court trying the suit O.S.No.490/1996 and the appellate court dealing with M.A.No.35/2002 have not at all lodged such complaint and hence the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Counsel further made the submission that learned Magistrate has not at all taken into consideration Section 79 of the Karnataka Universities Act before passing the impugned order and the learned Magistrate totally ignored that sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was required for prosecution of the employees of the university. He also made the submission that even looking to the sworn statement of the complainant before the learned Magistrate it will not make out the case and it will not make out when and how the alleged offences have been committed and it is only the bald and vague allegations are made against the petitioners herein. It is also his contention that as the complainant/respondent herein did not get any relief in the said suit with the malafide intention he filed the criminal case before the Magistrate Court. The petitioners are totally innocent and they have not at all committed the alleged offences. Only to humiliate and harass the petitioners and other officials of the Karnataka University Dharwad, false complaint has been filed by the complainant. Learned counsel also made the submission that in the year 1947 itself the Bombay Government acquired two lands bearing CTS No.80/B and CTS No.82/A- 1B and in 1947 itself possession was taken by the Government and owner of the said land sought for enhancement of compensation amount. Counsel further made the submission that brothers of the owner of the land filed suit O.S.No.77/1994 which was filed by one Mohan Vishnupanth seeking possession and separate possession. He also made the submission that Sy.No.80A cannot be identified at all. Counsel also submitted that when show-cause notice was issued to the City Survey Officer, the City Survey Officer deleted the earlier CTS number without there being any order of the Court. He also made the submission that the measurement as mentioned in the acquisition proceedings and the measurement spoken in the sworn statement of the complainant in respect of the acquired properties are tallying. Counsel further made the submission that change of CTS numbers of property is because of the fraud played by the complainant himself. Hence, he submitted that even perusing the entire materials produced by the complainant, it will not make out a prima facie case against any of the petitioners and it is only the abuse of process of the Court and the complaint filed with malafide intention. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant during the course of his argument made the submission that the counter claim of the defendant in the suit came to be dismissed and it becomes final as it was not at all challenged before the higher forum. Counsel made the submission that there is no change of the property number as alleged by the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners in collusion with each other have forged the documents in order to grab the property and in this regard he made the submission by drawing the attention of the Court to document Nos.4 to 9 of Annexure-15. Document No.15 of Annexure-15, document No.9 to 18 of Annexure-2, he also made the submission that with regard to passing of the order by the Special Deputy Commissioner as relied upon by the petitioners, there was no such post of Special Deputy Commissioner at all. Learned counsel further made the submission that even before acquisition of the property, forged documents were created by the petitioners. He draw the attention of this Court to documents dated 26.02.1999 produced as per Annexure-6 and documents No.2 to 7 of Annexure-1 and document No.26 as per Annexure-9. He also draw the attention of the Court to Para No.36, 43, 45 and 52 of the private complaint and made the submission that these paragraphs and the averments therein clearly makes out the prima facie case as against the petitioners/accused. It is also his contention that documents produced by the petitioners cannot be looked into at this stage. Hence, the counsel submitted that looking to the documents produced by the respondent/ complainant, coupled with the allegations in the private complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant, there is a prima facie case as against the present petitioners. He also draw the attention of this Court to the earlier order dated 6th day of February 2009 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.721/2005 c/w Criminal Petition No.800/2005 and draw the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs in the said order made the submission that the order also clearly goes to show that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners but as the procedure was not correctly followed by the learned Magistrate and there were some irregularities in recording the sworn statement the matter was remitted back to the trial court. Hence the counsel submitted that the allegations of the complainant are supported by the documentary evidence and hence there is a material to proceed with the case and it is not a case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the entire criminal proceedings as against the present petitioners. Hence, he submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, same may be rejected. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant relied upon the following decisions.

Sl. No.	Citation	Relevant para
1	Ravindra Kumar V/s M/s Pugmini AIR 2009 S.C. 2383	15
2	Rumugam V/s Kuttur AIR 2009 S.C. 341	17 and 20
3	Narayan Das V/s State of Karnataka 2004 CRL.L.J. 822 (SC)	6
4	Shivjee Singh V/s Nagendra Tiwari AIR 2011 S.C.2261	9
5	Ajay Kumar Das V/s State of Jharkhand AIR 2011 S.C. 3652	11
6	Iqbal Singh Marah V/s Meenakshi Marawah, AIR 2005 S.C. 2119	24
7	Kamaladevi V/s State of West Bengal 2001 CRL.L.J. 4733 (SC)	9 and 17
8	Rumi Dhar V/s State of West Bengal AIR 2009 S.C. 2195	18
9	Gopalkrishnan V/s Addl.S.P. Bangalore AIR 2009 S.C. 2015	17, 18 and 20
10	Centre for Public Interest Litigation V/s Union of India AIR 2005 S.C.4413	9
11	Raj Kishor Roy V/s Pandey 2002 CRL.L.J. 3780 (S.C.)	11
12	Sultana V/s State of West Bengal AIR 2009 S.C. 1404	14 and 17
13	Shamboonath Mishra V/s State of U.P. 1997 CRL.L.J. 2491 (SC)	4 and 5

7. I have perused the averments made in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The contents of the private complaint in P.C.No.49/2004 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad produced as per Annexure-A, order dated 3rd day of May 2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C., Dharwad ordering to register a criminal case against accused Nos.1 to 14 and issuance of summons in respect of the offences which have been already mentioned above. So also the sworn statement of PW1 dated 14.04.2010 and I have also perused the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant which are referred above and the documents produced by the petitioner before the trial court as the original file itself is secured and placed before this Court, so also I have perused the documents which were kept in the sealed cover in the High Court Registry which were secured during the course of hearing the arguments of both the sides and also considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides at the Bar.

8. Before coming to the merits of the case it is noticed that even earlier the Court took cognizance of the offences as against the petitioners and other accused persons by passing the order in PCR No.49/2004 (C.C.No.7/2005) on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and J.M.F.C., Dharwad. Said order was challenged by the petitioners/accused in two criminal petitions i.e. Criminal Petition No.721/2005 c/w 800/2005, before this Court and this Court by passing the order dated 6th day of February 2009 allowed the criminal petitions and remitted back the matter to the concerned Magistrate Court directing the Magistrate Court to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The said order passed by this Court dated 6th day of February 2009 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.776/2012 preferred by respondent/complainant as against the accused persons. But looking to the order dated 29th April 2014, the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn and the matter was disposed of on 29.04.2014 vacating the say which was granted earlier. After remanding the matter to the trial court, the trial court after recording the sworn statement of PW1 passed the order dated 3rd day of May 2010 wherein the trial court took cognizance of the offences by ordering to register the criminal case and ordered to issue summons to the petitioners and other accused persons which order has been challenged in this petition. Looking to the materials placed on record, they goes to show that respondent/complainant herein filed the suit O.S.No.490/1996 against Karnataka University Dharwad seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property described in the said suit bearing CTS No.82/1A1A/1 measuring 1 acre 25 gunts 2.8/9 sq. yards situated at Saptapur, Dharwad, which was said to have been inherited by the plaintiff from one V.R.Dharwadkar. The further averments that in pursuance of the gazette notification dated 24.03.1947 and 16.09.1947, the land bearing CTS No.82/1A measuring 30 guntas, 96.5/6 sq.yards and CTS No.80 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas 21.79 sq.yards situated at Saptapur, Dharwad were acquired under Land Acquisition Act for Karnataka College, Dharwad and after KHP Sej No.2 dated 30.10.1953 the land acquired by KCD was renumbered as R.S.No.2B. It is further contention of the respondent/ complainant that the suit property was not part of any acquisition proceedings and it was not part of R.S.No.2B. The further allegation by the respondent/complainant that accused Nos.1 to 10 initially entered into criminal conspiracy with the main object of extinguishing the plaintiff's right over the suit property claimed in O.S.No.490/1996 and to create absolute right to Karnataka University Dharwad over the suit property and thereby intended to defeat the right of the plaintiff in that suit and to achieve that object accused Nos.1 to 10 dishonestly, fraudulently decided to establish that property acquired under the gazette notification dated 24.03.1947 and 16.09.1947 under Land Acquisition Act belonged to V.R.Dharwadkar and also that the property acquired was situated to the south of one S.S.Jamkhandi's property and the suit property has been converted into botanical garden and it forms part of R.S.No.2B, which was transferred to Karnataka University Dharwad. The further allegation that accused No.2 in order to substantiate their dishonest and fraudulent claim produced several forged, fabricated and antedated documents, which documents as per the complaint averments are document Nos.2 to 7 as mentioned in Para No.11 Page No.15 of the complaint shown at Sl.Nos.(a) to (f). Perusing the earlier order passed by this Court dated 6th day of February 2009, this Court also while passing the said order made it clear that the document Nos.2 to 7 as mentioned in the complaint the allegation of the complainant that they were forged fabricated, antedated and then the accused persons produced those documents in the suit in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court has held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) (ii) (iii) of Cr.P.C. will not be applicable to the said case. But looking to the order of this Court passed on the earlier occasion while exercising jurisdiction under 482 of Cr.P.C. the order taking cognizance and issuance of a process was ordered to be set aside not because that there is no prima facie case as against the accused persons, but it was because of the specific reasons assigned by this Court that while recording the sworn statement of the complaint, the procedure contemplated under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was not correctly followed by the trial court. The reason for such observation by this Court, the Court made it clear that the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded in part and thereafterwards the affidavit of the complaint was filed with regard to the remaining portion and on such material the trial court took cognizance and ordered for issuance of the process. Hence, this Court held that the said procedure is against the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and hence remitted back the matter to the trial court to follow the procedure correctly and to take further steps afresh in accordance with law. Now looking to the materials placed on record, so also the sworn statement of the complainant PW1 the allegations in the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant as per Annexures-I to XI prima facie they goes to show that the respondent/complainant has made out a prima facie case as against the petitioners herein about their involvement in committing the alleged offences. Looking to the order taking cognizance by the trial court the Court has elaborately considered the matter taking each and every aspect of the case into consideration passed a detailed order for taking cognizance of the offences as against the petitioners and other accused persons. The order passed by the trial court ordering to register a criminal case against accused Nos.1 to 14 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120B of the I.P.C. and ordered for issuance of summons to the said accused persons. Looking to the said order passed by the trial court even the court has considered the aspect of sanction as per Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. so far as accused Nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 they being the Government servants. Even on that aspect also the trial court discussed the matter in detail and opined that obtaining prior sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required in view of discussion made and the opinion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge.

9. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent herein looking to the principles enunciated in the said decisions also, I am of the opinion that the trial court followed the correct procedure and after considering the materials placed before it rightly comes to the conclusion in registering the case and ordering for issuance of the process. There is no illegality committed by the trial court in coming to such conclusion nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in passing such order. Even perusing the complaint averments against each and every accused person there are detailed allegations made about committing the alleged offences, and even in the sworn statement of PW1 he has deposed in detail on oath before the trial court and perusing the documents produced by the respondent/complainant, the averments in the complaint so also the sworn statement of PW1 are supported by the documents produced by the complainant/ respondent herein. Therefore, on an evaluation of the factual matrix of the case with the documents produced and also taking into consideration the sworn statement and the complaint averments the trial court comes to a right conclusion. Looking to these materials placed on record at this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint averments will not make out a prima facie case as against any of the petitioners herein and it is only the abuse of process of the Court. This Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to examine the materials whether they make out a prima facie case against the petitioners/ accused or it is only the abuse of process of the Court. Looking to the materials placed on record so also the principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent herein, I am of the clear opinion that it is not a case to hold that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners or it is the abuse of process of the Court. The order passed by the trial court ordering for registering the criminal case against the petitioners and other accused persons and ordering for issuance of the process is supported by sound and valid reasons. There are no grounds for this Court to interfere into the said order of the trial court either to set aside or modify the said order. There is no merit in the criminal petitions filed. Accordingly, same are hereby dismissed.