IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RATHNAKALA, J.
SRI DEVIDAS GARG & ANR. - PETITIONERS
VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 2682/2015 C/W & 4768/2015
Decided on : 9-11-2015
Order - Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Sections 185, 341, 342, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B, 79A, 79B, 80 - The court discussed the allegations of forgery, cheating, and breach of trust under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, along with various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions discussed include the limitations on initiating criminal proceedings, the authority of the police to register a case, and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. for prosecution in respect of forgery. The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the allegations and the need for investigation into the offenses complained of.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of fabricating documents to purchase land in violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. They were also alleged to have cheated the government by selling the land to a fictitious company and committing forgery to escape the provisions of the Act. The complainant, an ex-employee of the petitioners, alleged threats and termination from service when he raised concerns about the sequence of events.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the allegations were of vast ramification and that it was in the larger interest of public policy that the investigation shall continue. The court also reserved liberty to the petitioners to avail all contentions advanced before the court at a later stage.
Issues: The issues included the locus standi of the complainant, the question of limitation for initiating proceedings, the authority of the police to register a case, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. for prosecution in respect of forgery, and the power of the investigating officer to reexamine the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was not to be quashed at the threshold itself, considering the gravity of the allegations and the need for investigation. It also emphasized that abuse of process of a quasi-judicial authority was alleged, and it was desirous in the larger interest of public policy that the investigation shall continue.
Final Decision: Both the petitions were dismissed, and liberty was reserved to the petitioners to avail all the contentions advanced before the court if need arises at a later stage.
Since the petitioners of the above cases are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 in FI.R.No.973/2014 dated 23.12.2014 registered by the HAL Police, in respect of offence punishable under Sections 185, 341, 342, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 120B of IPC and Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), on the complaint of the second respondent and the contention raised in both petitions being similar, both cases heard and disposed of together.
2. The gist of the complaint allegation is, the petitioners though are the residents of Delhi/Uttar Pradesh State, fabricated documents with the connivance of Government Officers as agriculturists purchased land at Devarabeesanahalli for fair consideration violating the provisions of the Act. They sold the land to a fictitious Company floated by them and their family members in the name of M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited. By exercising their political influence, they got these lands acquired by the Government through K.I.A.D.B. They have managed another Company by name Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd. They managed to get the very same lands allotted to the above Company. Without developing the land as per the terms of allotment by K.I.A.D.B., the accused persons and their family persons being Directors of the said Company sold the land to Land Developers, thereby cheated the Government. During the course, they created false documents, R.T.Cs. and passed them off as genuine documents to escape the rigour of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act. They forged the documents purporting to be the records maintained by the public authorities and passed themselves off as agriculturists in the State of Karnataka, though they had no income from nonagricultural sources. They committed forgery to cheat and defraud the State. They have committed breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating and converting to their own benefit, landed properties which was hitherto vested with the Government under Section 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act. They had dishonestly used and disposed of the property thereby violating Rules and Regulation of the K.I.A.D.B. When he bought the above facts to the notice of the petitioners, he was treated rudely and terminated from service without paying arrears of salary. They threatened to eliminate him and his family if he reveals anything about the sequence of events to anybody and not to come out of his house and not to interact with anybody. Their utterances caused enormous pressure on the complainant. He took few days to muster enough courage to lodge the complaint, thereby the petitioners have committed the offence.
3. Now the case is transferred for further investigation to C.I.D.
4. Before moving on to the respective contentions of the parties, it is in fitness of things to align undisputed facts:
The petitioners are the members of the same family. They purchased the lands in different survey numbers of Devarabeesanahalli and Boghanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, between 1996 and 2003 for valuable consideration. The revenue records stood transferred to their respective names. The Government of Karnataka vide notification dated 10.12.2001 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industries Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the KIAD Act’ for short), declared that certain agricultural lands in the villages of Devarabeesanahalli and Kariammana Agrahara, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, as industrial area. On the very same day, a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was also published in the Official Gazette. An extent of 109 acres 28 guntas was proposed to be acquired. M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited submitted its proposal to establish an integrated infrastructure project for IT/hospitality/education/housing infrastructure in various survey numbers of the above said lands, before the High Level Committee headed by the then Chief Minister of Karnataka. The Committee vide Government O
State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Arun Gulab Gawali and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 701
Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora and Others
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others
Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another
Sachida Nand Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar and Another
Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan (dead) and Another vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439
Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs. The State of Gujarat reported in 1971(2) SCC 376
Rajib Ranjan and others vs. R. Vijaykumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.