The M.D GESCOM Gulbarga V/S Smt. G.S. Girija W/o. S.S. Gouda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/08/46

Smt. G.S. Girija W/o. S.S. Gouda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The M.D GESCOM Gulbarga - Opp.Party(s)

S.E.NarayanaRao

23 Mar 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/46

Smt. G.S. Girija W/o. S.S. Gouda						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The M.D GESCOM Gulbarga The Asst. Executive Engineer The Executive Engineer The Section Officer						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Smt. G.S. Girija W/o. S.S. Gouda

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. The M.D GESCOM Gulbarga 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer 3. The Executive Engineer 4. The Section Officer

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. S.E.NarayanaRao

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. B. P H 1 to 5

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

ORDERON I.A.NO-I, II, & MEMO DT. 16-01-09. These two IAs and memo are filed by the Ops. Through Memo dt. 16-01-09 the Ops have sought for production of four documents in-support of their case. Through I.A. No-I dt. 02-02-09 the Ops have sought for permission to produce (10) documents as per the list for the reasons stated in the enclosed affidavit. Through I.A.No-2 the Ops have sought for dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant in-view of private complaint filed by the husband of the complainant alleging against these Ops for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents in-respect of the back billing charges etc., In the enclosed affidavit to this I.A.No-2, the OP-3 Assistant Executive Engineer(MT) GESCOM has sworn to the fact that the husband of the complainant after filing the complaint before this Forum has also filed a private complaint bearing No. 18/09 before JMFC II Court, Raichur against the Ops for the offences U/s. 417, 426, 465, 568 R/W section 182 of IPC for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents and in-turn the JMFC II Court, Raichur has referred the matter to the police for investigation report and the same has been registered by the Sadar Bazar PS Raichur in Crime No. 22/09 and issued FIR No. 82/09 and the matter is pending before the IO for investigation. The complainant herself has produced the certified copy of FIR with complaint. The documents alleged to have been forged are the documents involved in the above said complaint which is under consideration before this Forum. After filing the complaint in this Forum, the above said private complaint has been filed which makes the present complaint before this Forum as untenable due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court since offences of cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents require elaborate and voluminous examination of number of witnesses and documents to prove the allegations of the above said offences for which this Forum is not competent to adjudicate the complaint. Hence the complaint field by the complainant is fit to be dismissed due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court. 2. The complainant has filed objection to memo and to the two IAs. In the objection to the memo the complainant has contended that OP-3 has filed documents on 16-01-09 by suppressing the material facts and that they have not conducted panchanama by obtaining signatures of neighbour witnesses and no criminal case is registered against the complainant. Hence a bogus panchanama cannot be marked. The Ops have also produced consent letter which is created one. The signature is manipulated and the hand writings is not pertaining to the complainant. More-over the subject matter of Panchanama and consent Letter are not disclosed in the written version as well as in the complaint too. Therefore both are fabricated documents prepared with an intention to won the case. The calculation letter for back billing charges is also not supplied to the complainant and the forged documents are filed with an intention to improve their mistake. Due to illegal attitude of Ops the complainant is going to file a criminal case U/s. 417, 426, 465, 468 R/W Section 182 of IPC for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents. Hence the memo for production of documents filed by the Ops be rejected. 3. The complainant has filed objections to I.A.No-I contending that at the stage of hearing on the memo dt. 16-01-09 this I.A.I has been filed by the Ops based on fabricated documents. They have produced (10) documents which are not necessary to the case in any manner and after careful verification of these documents, the power supply has been sanctioned which is not in dispute. The question of mis-placement of documents does not arise, which are easily available in the custody of Ops and they are trying to drag on the matter by filing un-necessary documents. Hence she has sought for dismissal of I.A.No-1. 4. In the objection to IA.No-2 the complainant has contended that due to filing of created/manipulated documents by the Ops a criminal case is registered against Ops for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by manipulating signatures of the husband of the complainant and the said criminal case is under investigation with an intention to punish the Ops. The present complaint is filed for deficiency in service by the Ops which comes under civil nature and the complaint is maintainable. The criminal case pending before the criminal court is for punishment hence the question of subjudice does not arise and there are no such provisions in the CP Act to dismiss or reject the complaint without completion of trial. Hence she has sought for rejection of IA.No-2. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides, on the memo and the two IAs. Perused the records. 6. The complainant Smt. G.S. Girija Gilelsugur has filed this complaint U/s. 12 of C.P. Act for deficiency of service against five Ops (1) Managing Director GESCOM, Station Road, Gulbarga, (2) Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Raichur (3) Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Division Office, Raichur (4) Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) Sub-Division GESCOM, Raichur and (5) and Section Officer GEXCOM Gillesugur, Sub-Division, District: Raichur. It is contended that she has provided electricity by the Respondent bearing RR.No. GL-387 to run the Floor Mill and Mini Rice Mill situated Main Road, Gillesugur village and so she is consumer of the Ops. The terminal cover of the meter issued by the Ops is in loose (condition) and several applications moved by her to rectify the same since 2000 but the Ops have failed to rectify the same. It is the duty of the Ops to clear the defects involved in the meter by referring the Meter Testing Department which is mandatory. On 17-06-08 in the morning hours the Ops 3 & 5 have inspected the premises of the complainant alleged that meter running in slow at 46% of consumption and they issued Rating Report by demanding money for settlement and on the same day, another Rating Report also issued illegally by calculating an additional amount of Rs. 10,753/- on account of slowness of the meter, which was paid on 15-07-08 vide Receipt No. 12917 to avoid the disconnection of the electricity supply without fault of the complainant. It is mandatory provisions that if the meter reported to be dead stop, damaged, slow run or burnt and detailed enquiry is required, on receipt of the report regarding the meter becoming running in slow etc., it should be replaced immediately and necessary inquiry is to be conducted. No procedure is followed and that no matter is referred to the Electric Inspector to check and rectify the matter. The demand of additional amount for slow running of meter is not justified and only after filing is given by the Electrical Inspector in place of faulty meter, then only the Ops could proceed to prepare supplementary bill to the complainant. Due to negligence act and deficiency in service by the Ops, the complainant is suffering from mental agony with loss of huge money for that she is entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence she has sought for direction to the Respondents for refund of Rs. 10,751/- along with damages of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. 7. The O.P.No-3 has filed written version/objections to the complaint which has been adopted by the other Ops. In the written version the Ops have contended that by entire reading of the complaint it discloses that the complainant is challenging the claim of the Ops, as such she has to approach appropriate authority by way of appeal as per Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission (KERC) so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint does not disclose any deficiency of service on the part of these Ops. The allegations that the complainant is using the Floor Mill, Mini Rice Mill for personal use. As the matter of fact she is running the Floor and Rice Mill for commercial purposes, as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is denied that the complaint has moved several applications to rectify the terminal cover of the meter, as such she is put to prove the same. A back billing of Rs. 10,753/- has been issued on account of slow recording of meter and the complainant has also paid the said amount. It is specifically denied that the Ops 3 & 5 demanded the money for settlement and other allegations and the complainant has paid the bill amount to avoid disconnection of electricity. The complainant herself has pleaded in the complaint that the Electrical Inspector is the competent authority to inspect the faulty meter as such the complaint is not maintainable. On 17-06-03 the Ops proceeded to Gillesugur along with OP-5 and inspected the RR.No. GL 387 belonging to Floor Mill/Rice Mill of the complainant and while carrying calibration work it is found that the main cover of the seal of the meter was mis-using and a dust was deposited on the disk due to which the meter was recording 46% slow. On the concent letter of the complainant/representative of the complainant i.e, husband of the complainant for back billing for slow recording and considering non cognizable case as per 27.03 of supply condition of June-06, the complainant liable to pay Back Billing Charges as per Supply of Regulation No. 27.03(1). Due to missing of meter main cover seal and erroneous condition, the Ops-3 constrained to call the Vigilance party to conduct mahazar and to get legal aspect and on the consent of the complainant the meter was calculated in the present of PSI and Vigilance Officer and found that the meter was recording 46% slow. The meter was seized and observed in safe box. If the consumer disputes case negligence and he has got every right to challenge the same before the Electrical Inspector for Redressal. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of these Ops. As such the question of suffering from mental agony by the complainant and her entitlement for damages etc., does not arise. Hence for all these reasons the Ops have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 8. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and in rebuttal the Op-3 has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1 and filed memo for production of (4) documents as per list for which the complainant filed her objection and when the case was for hearing on this memo and for marking of documents at that juncture the Ops have filed the IA-1 and subsequently IA.No-2. 9. As seen above on 16-01-09 the Ops while filed affidavit-evidence of Op-3 by way of rebuttal evidence also filed a memo for production of (4) more documents as per list for which the complainant filed objections for production of these documents. In the objection to the memo the complainant has contended that the Ops have filed documents by suppressing the material facts without following due procedure and they have not conducted panchanama and not obtained signature of neighbour witnesses and they have also produced consent letter which is created one. The signature of the complainant is manipulated and handwritings are not pertaining to the complainant. The panchanama and the consent letter both are fabricated documents. Due to illegal attitude of Ops, the complainant has filed a criminal case for offences U/s. 417, 426, 465, 468 R/W Section 182 of IPC for cheating, mischief, & forgery and giving false information for creating false documents. Accordingly the complainant through memo dt. 10-02-09 has produced certified copy of FIR with complaint in Crime No. 22/09 of Sadar Bazar PS Raichur to show that a case for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information has been booked against the Ops herein. 10. Consequently the Ops have filed IA.No2 for dismissal/rejection of the complaint due to the private complaint No. 18/09 filed by the complainant before JMFC II Court Raichur for alleged offences which was referred to the Sadar Bazar PS Raichur who have registered in Crime No. 22/09 and issued Fir case No. 52/09 for alleged offences. The LC for the Ops argued that the documents produced by the Ops in this case for consideration by this Forum, have been alleged as forged documents and the complainant has filed a criminal case against Ops. So the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court. In-support of his arguments he has relied upon by the decision of Honble State Commission reported in CPR 1995 (3) Page 116 Head Note which reads as under:- Consumer Protectin act, 1986__Sections 12 & 17_Complainant booked a Car & made payment under bankers Cheques. On cancellation of booking opp. Party issued cheque towards refund of amount but got payment stop on notice from police__criminal case of cheating was registered against complainant in respect of banker cheques referred to in the complaint__matter subjudice before Criminal Court Complaint is untenable. 11. As against this the LC for the complainant submitted that the present complaint is filed for deficiency in service by the Ops is civil nature and criminal case filed by the complainant against the Ops is for punishment. So the question of subjudice does not arise. At the cost of repetition, as rightly pointed by the LC for the Ops, the complainant herein has filed private complaint/criminal case against the very Ops alleging that the documents filed by them in this case before the Forum with memo dt.16-01-09 are forged and fabricated documents and the signatures of the complainant and handwritings are forged and fabricated. The Ops are relying on these documents, but when the complainant herein has filed a private criminal case before JMFC II Court Raichur alleging that documents are forged and fabricated documents and the case has been referred to the police for investigation and the investigation is pending at this juncture the consideration of the very documents produced by Ops in this case amounts to subjudice and without consideration of those documents, there cannot be full adjudication of the matter pending before this Forum. Under such circumstances and having regard to the principles laid down in the above decisions of Honble High Court of Karnataka, we have no other go than to dismiss the complaint due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court. Hence I.A.No-2 deserves to be allowed. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER I.A.II filed by Op is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed due to subjudice of the criminal case filed by the present complaint before the criminal court. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-03-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

ORDERON I.A.NO-I, II, & MEMO DT. 16-01-09. These two IAs and memo are filed by the Ops. Through Memo dt. 16-01-09 the Ops have sought for production of four documents in-support of their case. Through I.A. No-I dt. 02-02-09 the Ops have sought for permission to produce (10) documents as per the list for the reasons stated in the enclosed affidavit. Through I.A.No-2 the Ops have sought for dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant in-view of private complaint filed by the husband of the complainant alleging against these Ops for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents in-respect of the back billing charges etc., In the enclosed affidavit to this I.A.No-2, the OP-3 Assistant Executive Engineer(MT) GESCOM has sworn to the fact that the husband of the complainant after filing the complaint before this Forum has also filed a private complaint bearing No. 18/09 before JMFC II Court, Raichur against the Ops for the offences U/s. 417, 426, 465, 568 R/W section 182 of IPC for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents and in-turn the JMFC II Court, Raichur has referred the matter to the police for investigation report and the same has been registered by the Sadar Bazar PS Raichur in Crime No. 22/09 and issued FIR No. 82/09 and the matter is pending before the IO for investigation. The complainant herself has produced the certified copy of FIR with complaint. The documents alleged to have been forged are the documents involved in the above said complaint which is under consideration before this Forum. After filing the complaint in this Forum, the above said private complaint has been filed which makes the present complaint before this Forum as untenable due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court since offences of cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents require elaborate and voluminous examination of number of witnesses and documents to prove the allegations of the above said offences for which this Forum is not competent to adjudicate the complaint. Hence the complaint field by the complainant is fit to be dismissed due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court. 2. The complainant has filed objection to memo and to the two IAs. In the objection to the memo the complainant has contended that OP-3 has filed documents on 16-01-09 by suppressing the material facts and that they have not conducted panchanama by obtaining signatures of neighbour witnesses and no criminal case is registered against the complainant. Hence a bogus panchanama cannot be marked. The Ops have also produced consent letter which is created one. The signature is manipulated and the hand writings is not pertaining to the complainant. More-over the subject matter of Panchanama and consent Letter are not disclosed in the written version as well as in the complaint too. Therefore both are fabricated documents prepared with an intention to won the case. The calculation letter for back billing charges is also not supplied to the complainant and the forged documents are filed with an intention to improve their mistake. Due to illegal attitude of Ops the complainant is going to file a criminal case U/s. 417, 426, 465, 468 R/W Section 182 of IPC for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by creating false documents. Hence the memo for production of documents filed by the Ops be rejected. 3. The complainant has filed objections to I.A.No-I contending that at the stage of hearing on the memo dt. 16-01-09 this I.A.I has been filed by the Ops based on fabricated documents. They have produced (10) documents which are not necessary to the case in any manner and after careful verification of these documents, the power supply has been sanctioned which is not in dispute. The question of mis-placement of documents does not arise, which are easily available in the custody of Ops and they are trying to drag on the matter by filing un-necessary documents. Hence she has sought for dismissal of I.A.No-1. 4. In the objection to IA.No-2 the complainant has contended that due to filing of created/manipulated documents by the Ops a criminal case is registered against Ops for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information by manipulating signatures of the husband of the complainant and the said criminal case is under investigation with an intention to punish the Ops. The present complaint is filed for deficiency in service by the Ops which comes under civil nature and the complaint is maintainable. The criminal case pending before the criminal court is for punishment hence the question of subjudice does not arise and there are no such provisions in the CP Act to dismiss or reject the complaint without completion of trial. Hence she has sought for rejection of IA.No-2. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides, on the memo and the two IAs. Perused the records. 6. The complainant Smt. G.S. Girija Gilelsugur has filed this complaint U/s. 12 of C.P. Act for deficiency of service against five Ops (1) Managing Director GESCOM, Station Road, Gulbarga, (2) Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Raichur (3) Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Division Office, Raichur (4) Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) Sub-Division GESCOM, Raichur and (5) and Section Officer GEXCOM Gillesugur, Sub-Division, District: Raichur. It is contended that she has provided electricity by the Respondent bearing RR.No. GL-387 to run the Floor Mill and Mini Rice Mill situated Main Road, Gillesugur village and so she is consumer of the Ops. The terminal cover of the meter issued by the Ops is in loose (condition) and several applications moved by her to rectify the same since 2000 but the Ops have failed to rectify the same. It is the duty of the Ops to clear the defects involved in the meter by referring the Meter Testing Department which is mandatory. On 17-06-08 in the morning hours the Ops 3 & 5 have inspected the premises of the complainant alleged that meter running in slow at 46% of consumption and they issued Rating Report by demanding money for settlement and on the same day, another Rating Report also issued illegally by calculating an additional amount of Rs. 10,753/- on account of slowness of the meter, which was paid on 15-07-08 vide Receipt No. 12917 to avoid the disconnection of the electricity supply without fault of the complainant. It is mandatory provisions that if the meter reported to be dead stop, damaged, slow run or burnt and detailed enquiry is required, on receipt of the report regarding the meter becoming running in slow etc., it should be replaced immediately and necessary inquiry is to be conducted. No procedure is followed and that no matter is referred to the Electric Inspector to check and rectify the matter. The demand of additional amount for slow running of meter is not justified and only after filing is given by the Electrical Inspector in place of faulty meter, then only the Ops could proceed to prepare supplementary bill to the complainant. Due to negligence act and deficiency in service by the Ops, the complainant is suffering from mental agony with loss of huge money for that she is entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence she has sought for direction to the Respondents for refund of Rs. 10,751/- along with damages of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. 7. The O.P.No-3 has filed written version/objections to the complaint which has been adopted by the other Ops. In the written version the Ops have contended that by entire reading of the complaint it discloses that the complainant is challenging the claim of the Ops, as such she has to approach appropriate authority by way of appeal as per Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission (KERC) so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint does not disclose any deficiency of service on the part of these Ops. The allegations that the complainant is using the Floor Mill, Mini Rice Mill for personal use. As the matter of fact she is running the Floor and Rice Mill for commercial purposes, as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is denied that the complaint has moved several applications to rectify the terminal cover of the meter, as such she is put to prove the same. A back billing of Rs. 10,753/- has been issued on account of slow recording of meter and the complainant has also paid the said amount. It is specifically denied that the Ops 3 & 5 demanded the money for settlement and other allegations and the complainant has paid the bill amount to avoid disconnection of electricity. The complainant herself has pleaded in the complaint that the Electrical Inspector is the competent authority to inspect the faulty meter as such the complaint is not maintainable. On 17-06-03 the Ops proceeded to Gillesugur along with OP-5 and inspected the RR.No. GL 387 belonging to Floor Mill/Rice Mill of the complainant and while carrying calibration work it is found that the main cover of the seal of the meter was mis-using and a dust was deposited on the disk due to which the meter was recording 46% slow. On the concent letter of the complainant/representative of the complainant i.e, husband of the complainant for back billing for slow recording and considering non cognizable case as per 27.03 of supply condition of June-06, the complainant liable to pay Back Billing Charges as per Supply of Regulation No. 27.03(1). Due to missing of meter main cover seal and erroneous condition, the Ops-3 constrained to call the Vigilance party to conduct mahazar and to get legal aspect and on the consent of the complainant the meter was calculated in the present of PSI and Vigilance Officer and found that the meter was recording 46% slow. The meter was seized and observed in safe box. If the consumer disputes case negligence and he has got every right to challenge the same before the Electrical Inspector for Redressal. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of these Ops. As such the question of suffering from mental agony by the complainant and her entitlement for damages etc., does not arise. Hence for all these reasons the Ops have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 8. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and in rebuttal the Op-3 has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1 and filed memo for production of (4) documents as per list for which the complainant filed her objection and when the case was for hearing on this memo and for marking of documents at that juncture the Ops have filed the IA-1 and subsequently IA.No-2. 9. As seen above on 16-01-09 the Ops while filed affidavit-evidence of Op-3 by way of rebuttal evidence also filed a memo for production of (4) more documents as per list for which the complainant filed objections for production of these documents. In the objection to the memo the complainant has contended that the Ops have filed documents by suppressing the material facts without following due procedure and they have not conducted panchanama and not obtained signature of neighbour witnesses and they have also produced consent letter which is created one. The signature of the complainant is manipulated and handwritings are not pertaining to the complainant. The panchanama and the consent letter both are fabricated documents. Due to illegal attitude of Ops, the complainant has filed a criminal case for offences U/s. 417, 426, 465, 468 R/W Section 182 of IPC for cheating, mischief, & forgery and giving false information for creating false documents. Accordingly the complainant through memo dt. 10-02-09 has produced certified copy of FIR with complaint in Crime No. 22/09 of Sadar Bazar PS Raichur to show that a case for cheating, mischief, forgery and giving false information has been booked against the Ops herein. 10. Consequently the Ops have filed IA.No2 for dismissal/rejection of the complaint due to the private complaint No. 18/09 filed by the complainant before JMFC II Court Raichur for alleged offences which was referred to the Sadar Bazar PS Raichur who have registered in Crime No. 22/09 and issued Fir case No. 52/09 for alleged offences. The LC for the Ops argued that the documents produced by the Ops in this case for consideration by this Forum, have been alleged as forged documents and the complainant has filed a criminal case against Ops. So the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court. In-support of his arguments he has relied upon by the decision of Honble State Commission reported in CPR 1995 (3) Page 116 Head Note which reads as under:- Consumer Protectin act, 1986__Sections 12 & 17_Complainant booked a Car & made payment under bankers Cheques. On cancellation of booking opp. Party issued cheque towards refund of amount but got payment stop on notice from police__criminal case of cheating was registered against complainant in respect of banker cheques referred to in the complaint__matter subjudice before Criminal Court Complaint is untenable. 11. As against this the LC for the complainant submitted that the present complaint is filed for deficiency in service by the Ops is civil nature and criminal case filed by the complainant against the Ops is for punishment. So the question of subjudice does not arise. At the cost of repetition, as rightly pointed by the LC for the Ops, the complainant herein has filed private complaint/criminal case against the very Ops alleging that the documents filed by them in this case before the Forum with memo dt.16-01-09 are forged and fabricated documents and the signatures of the complainant and handwritings are forged and fabricated. The Ops are relying on these documents, but when the complainant herein has filed a private criminal case before JMFC II Court Raichur alleging that documents are forged and fabricated documents and the case has been referred to the police for investigation and the investigation is pending at this juncture the consideration of the very documents produced by Ops in this case amounts to subjudice and without consideration of those documents, there cannot be full adjudication of the matter pending before this Forum. Under such circumstances and having regard to the principles laid down in the above decisions of Honble High Court of Karnataka, we have no other go than to dismiss the complaint due to subjudice of the matter before the criminal court. Hence I.A.No-2 deserves to be allowed. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER I.A.II filed by Op is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed due to subjudice of the criminal case filed by the present complaint before the criminal court. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-03-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.