Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Latha Rajanikanth, approached the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8355 of 2021 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, including the complaint dated 30.05.2015, FIR dated 09.06.2015 in Crime No.217 of 2015, and the order of cognizance dated 27.03.2021 for offences under Sections 196, 199, 420, 463 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute arose from financial transactions between the second respondent, M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited, and M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited regarding the Tamil film Kochadian, where the petitioner’s daughter was the director and her husband was the lead protagonist. Allegations surfaced that the petitioner had executed a guarantee on behalf of Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited but failed to honour it after the film suffered losses, leading to wide media coverage. In response, the petitioner filed a civil suit, O.S.No.9312 of 2014, on 01.12.2014 in Bangalore against 70 news agencies seeking an injunction against publication of the allegations. An interim injunction was granted on 02.12.2014, but on 13.02.2015 the plaint was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction and the injunction was dissolved. The petitioner’s appeal in M.F.A.No.2879 of 2015 was dismissed for default on 24.02.2016. Meanwhile, the second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the petitioner produced a forged document before the civil court to establish jurisdiction and obtain the injunction, thereby committing forgery and cheating. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered on 09.06.2015. The petitioner earlier challenged the FIR and proceedings in Criminal Petition No.4291 of 2015. The High Court on 10.03.2016 quashed the proceedings as a purely civil dispute, but the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.854 of 2018 set aside that order, holding that the complaint disclosed a triable issue and a prima facie case, and directed that the trial should proceed. After the Supreme Court’s order, the police filed a charge sheet on 27.02.2021, and the Magistrate took cognizance on 27.03.2021 and issued summons. The petitioner then filed the present petition, contending that the cognizance was taken without jurisdiction because Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a private complaint for offences relating to a document produced in court, and that only the court where the document was produced could direct a complaint. The respondent argued that the private complaint was maintainable because the document became custodia legis after production, and also challenged the maintainability of the second petition. The court framed two issues: whether the second petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable, and whether the cognizance order suffers from want of jurisdiction. The arguments were heard and the case was reserved for orders on 27.05.2022. The provided judgment text does not contain the final decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Maintainability of Second Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Court framed issue whether second petition under Section 482 CrPC maintainable after earlier quashing set aside by Supreme Court and direction to proceed with trial - Arguments by both sides considered. (Paras 10-11) B) Criminal Procedure - Bar under Section 195 CrPC for Offences Involving Court Documents - Sections 195, 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 196, 199, 420, 463, 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Court framed issue whether cognizance suffered from want of jurisdiction due to bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC as the alleged forged document was produced in civil court - Petitioner argued private complaint barred; Respondent argued document became custodia legis and thus private complaint maintainable. (Paras 7-8, 9)
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether the present petition, second in line, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable? (ii) Whether the order taking cognizance dated 27.03.2021 by the learned Magistrate suffers from want of jurisdiction?
Law Points
- Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC bars private complaint for offences relating to documents produced in court
- Section 340 CrPC procedure for court-directed complaint
- Maintainability of second petition under Section 482 CrPC when earlier petition quashed and set aside by Supreme Court on a different ground
- Cognizance by Magistrate must comply with jurisdictional bars
