Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 108 (KAR)

MAHALINGESHWARA BHAT v. M. GANAPATHY BHAT

2001-02-02

N.S.VEERABHADRAIAH

body2001
N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have questioned the order of the learned judicial magistrate first class, sullia insofar as issuing of summons to them by rejecting the b-report for the offences under sections 465 and 468 of the IPC. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on presenting the complaint by the respondent, the matter was referred to the jurisdictional police under Section 156 (3) of the cr. P. c. for investigation. After investigation, the police filed b-report which shows that there are no materials against the petitioners for any of the alleged offences. Further submitted that in spite of the said fact, the learned judicial magistrate first class rejected b-report and ordered for issue of summons. It is also contended that the sworn statement was not recorded before taking cognizance and issuance of summons. The last contention is that, as the alleged offences are under sections 465 and 468 of the IPC, the complaint ought to have been filed by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the court could not have taken cognizance in view of Section 195 of the cr. P. c. ( 3 ) INSOFAR as these grounds are concerned, the Supreme Court in sachida nand singh and another v state of Bihar and another, while considering the Provisions of Section 195 of the cr, p. c. observed thus:"the bar contained in Section 195 (l) (b) (ii) of the code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340 (1) of the code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of Justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis (patel laljibhai somabhai v state of gujarat and gopalakrishna menon v d. Raja reddy)". in the case on hand, it is the specific case of the complainant that before submitting the application to the competent authority, the varadhi was tampered and submitted for grant of land. Therefore, the alleged tampering or forgery of the documents was made earlier and not while the proceedings were pending. in the case on hand, it is the specific case of the complainant that before submitting the application to the competent authority, the varadhi was tampered and submitted for grant of land. Therefore, the alleged tampering or forgery of the documents was made earlier and not while the proceedings were pending. Therefore, the contention that Section 195 is a bar is not sustainable in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court. ( 4 ) ON examining the records, it shows that though the b-report was filed on 22-12-1999, the protest application came to be filed on 6-3-2000 and the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. After examining the materials on record and also the sworn statement, the learned judicial magistrate first class rejected the b-report on 15-3-2000 observing that there are sufficient materials to proceed and ordered for issue of summons. The procedure followed do not suffer with any infirmities as such to interfere with the issue of summons. On all these grounds, i do not find any merits in this petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to take up all such legal contentions before the trial court. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .