Karnataka High Court
Ayub Shafi Mulla vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100009 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. AYUB SHAFI MULLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: JOURNALIST
R/O SRINAGAR FACTORY ROAD
RAIBAG, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
2. MALLAPPA S/O LAGAMAPPA METRI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O MALI GALLI
RAIBAG, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI:SHRIHARSH.A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
RAIBAG POLICE STATION
RAIBAG, BELAGAVI DISTRICT
THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH DHARWAD.
2. THE TAHASHILDAR
RAIBAG, BELGAUM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., AND READ WITH ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.625/2016 AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
RAIBAG FOR THE OFFENCES SECTION 419, 420, 465, 466,
467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 481, 482, 484, 485,
488, 109, 167 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND F RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.09.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER ON THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending in CC No.625 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal City Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (for short 'the trial Court'), for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 481, 482, 484, 485, 488, 109, 167 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), which was initiated on the basis of first information lodged by the informant- respondent No.2.
3
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 lodged the first information with Raibag police against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that they forged the signatures and concocted the orders of the Land Tribunal, Raibag, in respect of the land in Sy.No.236 of Khemalapur village, for the purpose of registering the said land in their names and produced fake documents before the complainant-the Tahasildar Raibag, and thereby they have committed the offences.
3. It is stated that the Land Tribunal, Raibag had considered the Form No.7 filed by the applicant Mallappa Siddappa Honawade, who is now represented by his legal representatives-Basappa Mallappa Honawade and another before the Land Tribunal. When the matter was pending for consideration, the petitioners have concocted the documents styled as the order dated 17.07.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal in their favour, by forging the signatures of the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi , the Chairman and Members of the Land Tribunal. After 4 concocting the documents, the same was produced before the complainant along with an application dated 11.02.2008. They have also concocted Form No.10 dated 29.03.2008 by forging the signature of the then Tahsildar, Raibag. Therefore, the informant requested to register the case against all the accused who are responsible for concoction of documents, forging the signatures and producing the same as genuine documents, before the authority concerned and thereby committed cheating.
4. The petitioners being accused Nos.8 and 9 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings registered against them, in the interest of justice.
5. Heard Sri.Shriharsh.A.Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Praveen.K.Uppar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the materials on record. 5
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the Members of the Land Tribunal. There is absolutely no allegations against these petitioners in the complaint. On the other hand, the FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 only. But, however, the Investigating Officer arrayed these petitioners as accused Nos.8 and 9 without any basis. The specific allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are that, they forged the signatures of the Chairman and Members of the Land Tribunal and also the Assistant Commissioner by concocting the order of the Land Tribunal and Form No.10. Thereafter, the same was produced before the Tahasildar, Raibag i.e., informant, with an intention to get the property registered in their names. When specific contention is taken that the signatures of the Chairman and Members of the Land Tribunal was forged by accused Nos.1 and 2, these petitioners who are the members of the Land Tribunal, could not have arrayed as accused. There is absolutely no allegations made against these petitioners. However, 6 they are arrayed as accused Nos.8 and 9 while filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing the criminal proceedings against them in the interest of justice.
7. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that after filing of the first information, FIR was initially registered against accused Nos.1 and 2. But during investigation it came to light that these petitioners have also involved in concoction of the documents. It was found that the signatures of these petitioners found on the fake order of the Land Tribunal to be genuine signatures. Therefore, it is clear that these petitioners have also joined hands with other accused in commission of the offences. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Prima facie materials are placed before the Court. The petitioners have to face the trial. Therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7
8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed? What Order?"
9. My answer to the above point is in 'negative' for the following:
REASONS
10. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused have forged the signatures of the chairman and some of the members of the Land Tribunal, Raibag and concocted the document styled as the order passed by the Tribunal and the same was placed before respondent No.2-Tahasildar, Raibag for getting form No.10 in their name and they have also concocted the said form No.10 by forging the signatures of the informant.
8
11. It is stated that initially the FIR was came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 7, the investigating officer under took investigation and filed the charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6. The petitioners herein were initially arrayed as accused Nos.8 and 9 in the FIR but while filing the charge sheet they are arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 7 for the above said offences.
12. After filing of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case in C.C.No.625/2016, which is now pending before the Prl.Civil Judge Court at Raibag, which is called in question by the petitioners-accused Nos.6 and
7.
13. The investigating officer after due investigation filed detailed charge sheet stating that accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed writ petition in W.P.No.34977/2000, before this Court seeking direction to declare them as occupancy holder in respect of R.S.No.236 measuring 22.12 acres which they acquired 9 from their father late Mallappa Siddappa Honawade. In the said proceedings, accused Nos.1 and 2 have produced fake and concocted order said to have been passed by the Land Tribunal Officer, Raibhag by forging the signatures. Even though, the mater was still pending before the Land Tribunal for consideration, in that regard accused Nos.1 and 2 colluding with accused Nos.6 and 7, who are the petitioners herein, as they were the members of the Land Tribunal, concocted the fake order dated 17.7.2003. Even though, there was no sitting of the Land Tribunal on that day, the accused forged the signatures of Assistant Commissioner-CW.9, who is the Chairman of the Tribunal and CW.12, who is the other members of the Land Tribunal. Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 have also colluded with accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 in concocting the documents by forging the signatures and putting fake seals on it and producing the same before this Court in the writ petition, knowing fully well those are the fake documents, concocted with the criminal idea. 10
14. The allegation made in the charge sheet refers to the specific overtact or involvement of accused Nos.6 and 7 amongst them in commission of the offences.
15. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when it is the contention of the prosecution that the Land Tribunal order itself is the concocted document, concocted by accused Nos.1 and 2 with the help of accused of accused Nos.3 to 5, no offence is made out against these petitioners, as they are admittedly members of the Land Tribunal at the relevant point of time. CW.12 was also one of the members of the Land Tribunal and he is similarly placed. But he is cited as a charge witness, whereas petitioners are arrayed as accused.
16. The above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered in the light of materials that are placed before the Court, the statements of various witnesses include that of CW.9, who is the 11 Assistant Commissioner working as Chairman of the Land Tribunal, at the relevant point of time. The statements of the material witnesses including CW.9 and 12 disclose that accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to record their names in the revenue records in respect of the disputed lands, in collusion with accused Nos.3 to 7 concocted the Land Tribunal order by forging the signatures of CW.9 and 12 being the Chairman and one of the member of the Land Tribunal respectively, put fake seals and produced the same before this Court to get a favorable order.
17. The materials placed before the Court prima- facie disclose that accused Nos.1 and 2, who are aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and also knowing that there was no sitting and no proceedings held before the Land Tribunal on 17.7.2003, concocted the document styled as the order of the Land Tribunal, forged the signature of CW.9 the Chairman of the Tribunal and CW.12 one of the member of the tribunal. It is stated that accused No.6 is appointed as 12 member of the Land Tribunal from the year 2000-06 and accused No.7 from 2001-05. It is also stated that the disputed signatures found on the forged document along with the admitted documents were forwarded for examination by the experts and it was found that the signatures of these petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 7 found on the fake concocted order of the Land Tribunal as genuine signatures, while the signatures of CW.9 and 12 to be forged. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners being accused Nos.6 and 7 have colluded with the other accused in concocting the documents.
18. To substantiate the contention of the prosecution it is relying on voluminous documents including the report of the expert in that regard. CW.10, the secretary of the Land Tribunal, Raibag states in his statement that his signature on the document was also forged while CW.11-Tahasildar being the secretary of the Land Tribunal states in his statement that the 13 proceedings initiated in respect of the land in question is still pending in KLR-CR-225/2000-01. CW13 and 14 have given their statements to the fact that they were in charge of the record section during the year 2004-2007 and they have not provided certified copy of the order dated 17.07.2003, which is said to be a fake document. They have stated that the signatures found on such certified copies are not genuine. Similarly, CWs.15 and 16 have stated that they have not issued certified copy of the order dated 17.07.2003 and that the seals and signatures found thereon are not genuine.
19. When these materials on record are considered in the light of the contentions taken by the parties, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioners herein. It is settled proposition to law that only if there are no prima-facie materials to constitute an offence against the petitioner and if the criminal proceedings is initiated in abuse of process of the Court, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C 14 is to be exercised for quashing the criminal proceedings. But the first information along with the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer makes specific allegations against the petitioners. Even though, accused Nos.3 and 6 named in the FIR were dropped while filing the charge sheet that was on the ground that no prima-facie materials were found against them to file the charge sheet. The petitioners against whom sufficient materials were collected and placed before the Court, cannot take advantage of dropping of the names of accused Nos.3 and 6. Even though, it is contended that CW.12 is similarly placed as he has also one of the member of the Land Tribunal in question, it is the contention of the prosecution that the signature of CW.12 found on the fake document is also found to be a forged signature and therefore, there are no materials to hold that he had also involved in commission of the offences. His statement was recorded by the investigating officer to support such contention. When there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused for the offences alleged 15 against the petitioners, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, I answer the above point in the negative and proceeded to pass the following;
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/am-