LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • 695 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY AND ANR. January 27, 1981 [S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] Code of Crimina: Procedure 1973, S. 195(1)(b)(i) & Indian Penal Code 1860, S.1·. 467, 193 and 114-Suit for reden1p1io11 of 1nortgage-Conspiracy by accused to deprive con1plai11ant of land-Safe deed forged-Prosecution with- out lvrittcn con1plaint of Court-Maintainability. Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 provides that no court sha.11 take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the sections enumerated therein (one of v ... hich is S. 193 J.P.C.) when such offence is allL'ged to hai·e been conunifled i11, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except upon a written co1nplaint from a Court. The prosecution alleged that both the respondents conspired to cheat the complainant and to deprive him fabricating a sale deed. along\\'ith of certain two others lands by The complainants' paternal grand-uncle mortgaged certain lands with possession to the father of respondent No. 1 for a period of 20 years with the condition that possession would be surrendered. to the owner after the expiry of th~ period. The father of the complainant executed a will bequeathing the A B c D aforesaid lands to hinl. The period of 20 years having expired the complainant E requested respondent No. 1 to surrender possession. Respondent No. 1 having failed to deliver possession, the compla.inant filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage. Subsequent to the institution of the suit the complainant came to know that respondent No. 1 had purchased the lands in question from respon- dent No. 2 who had impersonated the real ov..·ner, i.e. wife of the complainJnt's paternal grand-uncle. On inquiries made in the office of the Sub-Registrar, the complainant learnt that the sale deed had been registered on 10-11-1970. After F obtaining a registration copy of the sale deed and ascertaining that respondent No. 2 had no property of her own, the complainant filed a criminal complaint in the Court. After investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police filed a charge- sbeet against both the respondents a.nd two others for having commiUed offences under sections 120B, 193, 465. 468 and 420 read with section 114 I.P.C. The Sessions Court to which only the respondents were committed, con- victed respondent No. l under section 467 read with section 114 and section G 193 I.P.C. and respondent No. 2 under section 467 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine. In the appeals. against their conviction and sentence. the High Court found that respondent No. 1 was guilty nnder section 467 read with section 114 and section 193 J.P.C., but acquitted him on the ground that the complaint in the crjminal case which ended in the conviction of both the respondents Vi'aS filed by a private individual i.e. the complainant and not by a Civil Court. As regards respondent ~Na. 2 it found her to be guilty under section 467 l.P.C. but finding that she forged the document independently of respondent No. 1 and H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R. A being an illiterate \\'Oman who haJ n1ercly put her thumb impression on the docun1ent to admit its execution hct'ore the Subi-Registrar modified the ,_entcncc awarded to her, B c D E F G H In the appeal to this Court. HELD: 1 (i) The High Court was not right in law in holding that the complaint was totally not maintainable against respondent No. l in view of the provisions of S. 195(l)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and in not only acquit· ting him of the offence under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. but also in finding that he has comn1itted an offence punisbabJe under section J 93 l.P.C. [7.lOH] 1 (ii) The High Court was justified in coming to rhe conclusion on the evi· dence that respondent No. 1 was guilty under section 467 read with section 114 I.P.C. and that respondent No. ~ was guilty under section 467 l.P.C. [711AJ l(iii) 'fhe conviction of respondent No. l under section 467 read with section 114 I.P.C. and of respondent No. 2 of 467 I.P.C. are confirmed. [711B] 2. S. 195 ( 1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the offence under s. 193 LP .C. should be alleged to have been committed in or in relation to, any proceeding in any court. Since the forged sate deed was not pro- duced in evidence in any stage of the redemption s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.