Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 537 (KAR)

Shree Kshethra Dharmasthala v. K. Somanatha Nayak

2018-04-17

G.NARENDAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.5 preferred by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Hon’ble Court to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent by lodging complaint before the Jurisdictional Police for the offences punishable under Section Indian Penal Code and pass such other reliefs the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The allegations is that the written statement along with verifying affidavit sworn by the respondent came to be filed into the Court on 29.05.2013. It is case of the petitioner that the date, on which the verifying affidavit was sworn i.e., on 29.05.2018, the respondent had travelled abroad and was not in India and that the same amounts to forgery punishable under Section Indian Penal Code and also constitute an offence under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. 4. The respondent by an affidavit dated 11.12.2013 has categorically stated that between 19.05.2013 and 29.05.2013, he was not residing in India and he had travelled aboard and before travelling out of the Country, he has singed the written statement and verifying affidavit and handed over the same to his counsel. 5. The trial Court has examined the application and facts involved and the contentions of the respective parties in the background of the observations of this Court rendered in W.P.No.590/2015 wherein, this Court was pleased to quash the FIR registered as Cr.No.236/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC on the premise that the proceedings under Section 195 would not have been initiated by a party. Thereafter, the trial Court has also examined the scope and ambit of Section 195 and after examining the relevant provisions of Sections 463, 471, 475, 476 of IPC has concluded that there is no material which prima-facie demonstrates that the signature found on the written statement and verifying affidavits are not the signature of the defendant and it has also taken note of the fact that the defendant has admitted the said signature and concluded that prima-facie no case of forgery is forthcoming. Thereafter, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in 2003 (1) SCC 49 in the case of Delhi in Alkakasan vs. Indian Institute of Technology, it has observed that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 (4) of CPC are only directory in nature. It has also reasoned that the acts prima-facie does not in any manner demonstrate interference in the administration of justice and thereafter has concluded that the application does not prima-facie demonstrate the Commission of offence under Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. to enable the Court to invoke provisions under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and was of the opinion that the same does not deserve an immediate enquiry at that stage and thereafter was pleased to pass the order dismissing the application for the present. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations are not of substantial nature resulting in interference of administration or the dispensation of justice but, no doubt it could be an irregularity. This Court does not find any ground which would warrant interference with the considered order passed by the trial Court. 6. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court while rejecting the application for the present appears to be correct. This Court is also of a similar opinion that the consideration of the allegations may be dispensed for the present and it is one for the trial Court to look into at an appropriate stage.