Karnataka High Court
Mr. H.K. Ehethashamul Haq vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33663
WP No. 28462 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.28462 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. H.K. EHETHASHAMUL HAQ,
S/O. H.K. KAMIL NAYEEMUL HAQ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O. AT 1ST DIVISION,
CHAMARAJANAGAR ROAD,
GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by REPRESENTED BY
SUMA THE GUNDLUPET POLICE STATION,
Location:
HIGH GUNDLUPET - 571 123.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. MR. MOHAMMED ASIF ALI,
S/O. LATE MAHAMMED YUSUF,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
#6/168, NEAR FATHIMA MASJID,
A.P. MOHALLA, 3RD CROSS,
GUNDLUPET MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN - 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM A., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33663
WP No. 28462 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AMD 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.351/2018 DATED 30.07.2018
REGISTERED BY R-1 POLICE STATION ANNEXURED AT
ANNEXURE-F AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDING IF ANY AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the investigation launched by respondent No.1 in Cr.No.351/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Gundlupet.
2. Respondent No.2 submitted information in writing to respondent No.1 on 30.07.2018 that the petitioner had fabricated a mortgage dated 12.02.2012 and had forged the signature of his father in the said mortgage deed. He alleged that the document was drawn on an e-stamp paper issued by the State Bank of India. He alleged that the said bank was not authorised to issue e-stamp paper in view of a Circular dated 19.03.2010 -3- NC: 2023:KHC:33663 WP No. 28462 of 2019 issued by the State Government. He also alleged that the petitioner had fabricated an agreement of sale dated 29.05.2012 and had forged the signature of his father on the said agreement. He alleged that the agreement was drawn on an e-stamp paper issued by State Bank of India after the State Government had prohibited the issuance of stamp papers by the State Bank. He, therefore, alleged that the petitioner had created, forged and fabricated documents to lay a claim to the said property and therefore, requested respondent No.1 to take suitable action.
3. Respondent No.1 registered Crime No. 351/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC and took up investigation. The petitioner has challenged the investigation against him in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mortgage deed and the agreement of sale were -4- NC: 2023:KHC:33663 WP No. 28462 of 2019 drawn up on document sheets and the bank had collected stamp duty by franking them. He submitted that the allegation of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner had drawn up the mortgage deed and agreement on an e-stamp paper issued by the State Bank of India is false and without any basis.
5. Further, he contends that a suit in OS.No.142/2015 was filed for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 29.05.2012 and that respondent No.2 is contesting the said suit. He, therefore, submits that respondent No.2 cannot over reach the judicial process in O.S.No.142/2015 by filing a false complaint against the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the question whether the signatures of the father of respondent No.2 were forged by the petitioner on the mortgage deed and the sale agreement or not is to be investigated by the investigating officer and therefore, this Court may not quash the proceedings initiated against the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:33663 WP No. 28462 of 2019 petitioner. He also contended that there is a doubt about the franking of the stamp on the document sheets on which the mortgage deed and the agreement of sale was drawn up. He, therefore, contends that all these issues have to be comprehensively investigated by the investigation officer.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
8. The fact that the petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.142/2015 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 is actively defending the suit .Respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 30.07.2018 i.e., after three years from the date of receipt of the notice in OS.No.142/2015. The copies of the mortgage deed as well as agreement of sale placed on record indicate that they were not drawn on e-stamp issued by the State Bank of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:33663 WP No. 28462 of 2019 India. But, the stamp duty was collected by the State Bank of India and the documents were franked. Therefore, unless there is a finding by the Civil Court that the signatures found on the mortgage deed and agreement of sale were forged by the petitioner, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner cannot continue.
9. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The investigation launched against the petitioner and the Criminal Proceedings in Crime No.351/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to initiate suitable criminal action in the event of the Civil Court finding that the signatures found on the mortgage deed and the sale agreement are forged by the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11