Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 180 (KAR)

N. R. Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka

2021-01-29

H.P.SANDESH

body2021
ORDER : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the order dated 15.02.2020 Passed in PCR No. 12/2020 on the file of Civil Judge (JMFC) Koratagere and the consequent FIR registered in Crime No. 35/2020 by the first respondent-State for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 469 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No. 2 herein had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same is numbered as PCR No. 12/2020. The learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint passed an order to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition is filed. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and mechanically passed the order for investigation and it requires an interference of this Court. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader after taking the notice would submit that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and passed the order. 5. Heard the submissions of the respective Counsel. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 15.2.2020, reads as under: "This complaint is filed by complainant against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468 and 469 read with Section 34 of IPC. This complainant is heard and perused records. It is alleged that accused persons have intentionally cheated the complainant by creating the Will by forging the signature of the mother of complainant. That there was difference in the family as the complainant has married to women of another caste. On perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation is necessary for proceedings against the accused. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER This case is referred to jurisdictional police for the purpose of investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and submit report. Issue intimation to jurisdictional police accordingly. Await Final report. Call on: 31.03.2020." 6. Having perused the order dated 15.2.2020, referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate in the order specifically mentions that the allegation is that the accused persons have cheated the complainant by creating the Will by forging the signature of the mother of the complainant. Await Final report. Call on: 31.03.2020." 6. Having perused the order dated 15.2.2020, referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate in the order specifically mentions that the allegation is that the accused persons have cheated the complainant by creating the Will by forging the signature of the mother of the complainant. It is also noticed that there was a difference in the family as the complainant has married to a woman belonging to another caste. On perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation is necessary for proceedings against the accused. Having perused the order, the learned Magistrate looked into the contents of the complaint and also the materials on records applied his judicious mind and passed the order. 7. This Court cannot find fault with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of HDFC Securities Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in AIR 2017 SC 61 , held that, while invoking Section156(3) of Cr.P.C., it will not amount to directing investigation not causing an injury of irreparable nature and the same cannot be quashed at a premature stage. Paragraph No. 24 of the said judgment reads as follows: "24. It appears to us that the appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the appellants challenged the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants after summarizing their arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the context of the fundamental rights of the appellants under the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused grave inequities to the appellants. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of the process of law. However, it appears to us that this order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at this stage are nothing but premature. Further, in our opinion, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. In these circumstances, we do not find that there is any flaw in the impugned order or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. Accordingly, we affirm the order so passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. The appeal is dismissed." 8. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment in HDFC Securities Ltd.'s case (supra), particularly in paragraph No. 24 of the Judgment, it is clear that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with regard to quashing of FIR, the Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., sparingly. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER : (i) Petition is dismissed. (ii) However, the liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court after filing of the charge-sheet, if need arises. In view of allowing the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.