Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagadish S/O Basavaraj ... vs The State Public Prosecutor, on 20 March, 2013
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15310/2013
BETWEEN:
JAGADISH
S/O BASAVARAJ GADDAGIMATH
R/O SIDDESHWARA COLONY
AGE: 46 YEARS
OLD JEWARGI ROAD
GULBARGA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRAVEEN RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CIRCUIT BENCH
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDINGS
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
2
No.95/2012 ON THE FILE OF BRAHMAPUR POLICE STATION
GULBARGA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is accused in Crime No.95/2012 on the file of Brahmapur Police Station, Gulbarga facing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section (1) (9) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He seeks quashing of the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint lodged against petitioner is on the allegation that he had obtained caste certificate declaring he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. His application dated 24.10.1991 was considered by the jurisdictional Tahsildar and certificate was issued. He used the certificate for applying for a post in the Union Public Service Commission, but however, he was not selected or 3 appointed. His main contention is petitioner has till now not used the said caste certificate for taking any benefit from the Government. When that being so, the Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Gulbarga, could not have filed the complaint against him for such an offence. Learned counsel also relies on the order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.3200/2010 whereby this Court opines as the petitioner in that case had not obtained any caste certificate to secure the admission in educational institution or for appointment and as it is alleged certificate is obtained by the petitioner for the benefit of his son and as no benefit is received based on the certificate, prosecution is not appropriate.
3. As the learned counsel has relied on the order of this Court, it has become necessary to examine as to whether circumstances warrant quashing of the proceedings. It is not in dispute that petitioner has obtained caste certificate declaring himself to be belonging to Beda Jangama, whereas he does not belong to that 4 caste. This certificate is issued to him based on his declaration and oath on 24.10.1991. The jurisdictional Tahsildar accepted his submission and issued the certificate. But on verification, they found signature appearing in the caste certificate purporting to be of Tahsildar is not the signature of that Tahsildar, therefore, a charge for forgery has also been raised. The prosecution has raised charge for the offence punishable under Section 198, as also for forgery.
4. Therefore, the very fact of possessing false certificate or certificate containing false material is to be treated as an offence giving false evidence. In this case, petitioner has by his own conduct obtained certificate declaring he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The second offence alleged is punishable under Section 420 of IPC, which undoubtedly shows it is an attempt to cheat. He has also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 465, which envisages:
5
"465. Punishment for forgery.- Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
5. Here the allegation is certificate contains forged signature of Tahsildar. He has also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC, which envisages:
"471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
6. Therefore, the very fact that he obtained certificate and retained it brings his acts within the mischief of Section 471 of IPC also. In the circumstances, statement from the complainant that till now he has not 6 benefited by the certificate and that he has not used the certificate to secure the job and for any other benefit from the Government can be no ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition filed seeking quashing of the proceedings is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*