Karnataka High Court
Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
R
AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8939 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6007 OF 2015
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7789 OF 2015
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7790 OF 2015
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8938 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2440 OF 2020
IN CRL.P No. 8939/2018
BETWEEN:
MR. B. MANJUNATH
S/O. MR. BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
NO.2095, 2ND CROSS, 8TH MAIN
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST
BANGALORE - 560 065.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G ... PETITIONER
Location: high (BY SRI: SIDDHARTH B MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)
court of
karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. PRIYANKA B.S.
W/O. DR. MADHUKAR G. ANGOOR
ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY,
CHANDAPURA ANEKAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE - 562 106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: H.S. SRIVASTHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.762/2015 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 403, 420, 467, 468, 474, 120B OF IPC PENDING BEFORE
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
IN CRL.P.6007/2015
BETWEEN:
1. DR. K. SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O K L REDDY (LATE)
AGED 63 YEARS
OCCUPATION: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
C/O. K. RAVINDRA REDDY
R/O. PLOT NO.519/F
ROAD NO. 28, JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD - 500 033
2. MAHESH
S/O LATE BADE SHIVARATHNAM
AGED 60 YEARS
OCCUPATION: PARTNER
M/S VEERANDAR & SRIRAM
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
3RD FLOOR, APARNA CREST
ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD - 500 034
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: CHETHAN B. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
ANEKAL CIRCLE
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DR MADHUKAR G ANGUR
S/O GUDAPPA B ANGUR
AGED 55 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF
M/S ALLIANCE BUSINESS SCHOOL
NO.29, 27TH MAIN ROAD
1ST CROSS, BTM LAYOUT
1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 068
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2015
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
ANEKAL IN C.C.NO.761/2015 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ORDERING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL
CASE WITHOUT MENTIONING FOR WHAT OFFENCE THE
COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
IN CRL.P.7789/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. RAVINDER REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE K. YELLA REDDY
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
R/AT NO.8-2-293/82/A/519F
ROAD NO.28, JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD - 500 034.
ALSO AT: NO.277/21
46TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
ANEKAL CIRCLE
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DR MADHUKAR GANGUR
S/O G.B. ANGUR
CHANCELLOR
ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY
CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL MAIN
ROAD, ANEKAL,
BENGALURU - 560 126
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2015
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL IN
C.C.NO.761/2015 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER AND ORDERING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE
WITHOUT MENTIONING FOR WHAT OFFENCE THE COGNIZANCE HAS
BEEN TAKEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 761/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.P.7790/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. RAVINDER REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE K. YELLA REDDY
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
RESIDING AT NO.8-2-293/82/A/519F ROAD
NO.28, JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD, ALSO AT:
NO.277/21, 46TH CROSS
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 011.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
ANEKAL CIRCLE, BENGALURU
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SMT. B.S. PRIYANKA
W/O DR. MADHUKAR G. ANGUR
ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY
CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD
ANEKAL, BANGALORE - 560 126.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: H.K. SRIVASTHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2015
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL IN
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
C.C.NO.762/2015 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER AND ORDERING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE
WITHOUT MENTIONING FOR WHAT OFFENCE THE COGNIZANCE HAS
BEEN TAKEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.762/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL.
IN CRL.P.8938/2018
BETWEEN:
MR. B. MANJUNATH
S/O. MR. BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
NO.2095, 2ND CROSS
8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT
GKVK POST, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE - 560 065.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DR. MADHUKAR G. ANGUR
S/O G.B. ANGUR
CHANCELLOR
ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY
CHANDAPURA
ANEKAL MAIN ROAD
ANEKAL, BANGALORE - 562 106.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: H.K. SRIVASTHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN
C.C.NO.761/2015 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 403, 420, 467, 468, 474, 120(B) IPC PENDING BEFORE
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL.
IN CRL.P.2440/2020
BETWEEN:
1. DR. K. SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O K.L. REDDY (LATE)
AGED 63 YEARS
OCCUPATION: MEDICAL
PRACTITIONER
C/O. K. RAVINDRA REDDY
R/O. PLOT NO.519/F
ROAD NO.28, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD - 500
2. MAHESH
S/O
AGED YEARS
OCCUPATION: PARTNER
M/S VEERANDAR & SRIRAM
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
3RD FLOOR, APARNA CREST
ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD - 500 034.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: CHETAN B ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
ANEKAL CIRCLE
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. PRIYANKA B.S.
W/O MADHUKAR G. ANGUR
AGED 30 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF
M/S ALLIANCE BUSINESS SCHOOL
NO.29, 27TH MAIN ROAD
1ST CROSS, BTM LAYOUT
1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 068.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: H.K. SRIVASTHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2015
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN
C.C.NO.762/2015 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS AND ORDERING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE
WITHOUT MENTIONING FOR WHAT OFFENCE THE COGNIZANCE HAS
BEEN TAKEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.08.2024 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
CAV COMMON ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.1 in Criminal Petition
Nos.7789 of 2015, the petitioner - accused No.2 in Criminal
Petition No.8938 of 2018 and the petitioners - accused Nos.5
and 6 in Criminal Petition No.6007 of 2015 are seeking to set
aside the order dated 07.08.2015 taking cognizance for the
offences punishable under Sections 403, 420, 467, 468, 474
and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and to
quash the entire criminal proceedings in CC No.761 of 2015 on
the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal
(for short 'the Trial Court'). They have also filed Criminal
Petition Nos.7790 of 2015, 8939 of 2018 and 2440 of 2020
respectively seeking similar relief in CC No.762 of 2015 before
the Trial Court.
2. Crime No.143 of 2015 of Anekal Police Station was
registered on the basis of the first information lodged by the
informant - Dr.Madhukar G Angur, whereas Crime No.144 of
2015 of Anekal Police Station was registered on the basis of the
first information lodged by his wife B S Priyanka. In both the
complaints, the informants have made similar allegations with
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
respect to very same documents for having conspired together,
forged the signatures of the complainants, concocted the
documents in relation to shares, committed cheating by using
the forged documents as genuine and committed
misappropriation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 -
the informant in CC No.761 of 2015 and the informant in CC
No.762 of 2015 being the husband and wife have filed the first
information with Anekal Police Station and the FIR in Crime
Nos.143 and 144 of 2015 are registered alleging commission of
offences as stated above against all the accused. It is alleged
in the complaint that on 19.05.2015, the complainants received
a registered post from accused No.1 containing the details that
90% of share capital of the Company belonging to the
complainants were transferred in the name of accused No.1. To
evidence the same, the Xerox copies of the share certificates
and fake security transfer letter were also enclosed. The
informants found that the signatures on the said documents
were forged. It is stated that the informants have lost their
share certificates and it was suspected that the accused have
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
stolen it, misused the said share certificates and concocted fake
documents by forging the signatures of the informants.
Therefore, they requested the police to register the case and to
take legal action against accused No.1.
4. On registration of FIRs, the investigation was
undertaken. During investigation, the further statements of the
informants were recorded, wherein, they have stated that in
the original suit i.e., OS No.25382 of 2015 before City Civil
Court, Mayohall, accused No.1 has filed an application seeking
his impleadment along with certain documents. On going
through the said application and the documents, the informants
came to know about several documents alleged to have been
executed by them. There was reference to (i) Share purchase
agreement (ii) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and (iii)
Special Power of Attorney. All these documents are dated
29.01.2015. It is stated by the informants that they have
never executed any of these documents. Therefore, it is
contended that all these documents were forged and fabricated
by the accused.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
5. It is further stated by the informants that the
documents produced along with the application disclose that
accused Nos.2 to 6 have also conspired with accused No.1,
played their role in forging and concocting the documents.
Therefore, they requested the police to implicate them as
accused. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 to 6 were also arrayed as
co-accused.
6. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be
filed. As per the charge sheet, accused Nos.1 and 2 have
stolen the original share certificates standing in the names of
informants and all the accused i.e., accused Nos.1 to 6 have
conspired together and concocted share purchase agreement,
MOU and Special Power of Attorney, projecting that the same
were executed by the informants, by forging their signatures.
It is stated that the share purchase agreement dated
29.01.2015 is concocted to be executed by the informant -
Dr.Madhukar G Angur agreeing to sell his 1,20,000 shares for
Rs.36,00,000/- in favour of accused No.1 and by the other
informant - B S Priyanka, who is the wife of Dr.Madhukar G
Angur agreeing to sell 1,05,000 shares for Rs.31,50,000/- to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
accused No.1 by forging their signatures. Accused Nos.2 and 4
have signed the documents as attesting witnesses.
7. Similarly, the MOU dated 29.01.2015 was concocted
by forging the signatures of the informants as the same was
executed in favour of accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 5 have
signed the documents as attesting witnesses. It is also stated
in the documents that the consideration amount for having
purchased the shares were paid by accused No.1 to the
informants through cheques and the receipts have been issued
in that regard. It is further stated that the Special Power of
Attorney deed dated 29.01.2015 was also concocted by forging
the signatures of the informants. They have projected that the
informants have appointed accused No.1 as their attorney and
the documents were signed by accused Nos.4 and 5 as
attesting witnesses.
8. It is stated that accused No.6 has concocted
financial and tax due diligence report dated 11.05.2015 to
enable accused No.1 to cheat the informants. Accused No.1
making use of the security transfer forms, forged the
signatures of the informants and concocted the documents, as
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
if, he purchased the shares as referred to in the forged share
purchase agreement. It is stated that nothing has been paid by
accused No.1 to the informants towards the consideration
amount as claimed by him for transfer of shares under various
documents. It was found that accused No.1 has paid the stamp
duty only on 14.05.2015 which clearly discloses commission of
the offences by the accused.
9. It is stated that by making use of these concocted
documents, accused No.1 filed the application seeking his
impleadment in the civil suit. Therefore, it is contended that
accused Nos.1 to 6 have criminally conspired to cheat the
informants, stolen the valuable securities, forged their
signatures for the purpose of cheating and thereby,
misappropriated the valuable shares dishonestly. The Trial
Court took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners
and registered CC Nos.761 and 762 of 2015. The petitioners in
the above petitions are seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against them by setting aside the order
taking cognizance passed by the Trial Court.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
10. Heard Sriyuths Siddharth B Muchandi, Chethan B
Angadi and M P Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Smt K P Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and Sriyuths H S Srivasthava and R Nagendra
Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the
materials on record.
11. Learned counsel for accused No.1 contended that it
was the informants who have agreed to sell the shares and
securities in favour of accused No.1 and accordingly, the share
purchase agreement dated 29.01.2015 came to be executed.
Similarly, the informants have also executed MOU and the
Special Power of Attorney deed of even date. After executing all
these documents, the informants have turn around and started
contending that their signatures were forged and filed the
complaints with an intention to make wrongful gain. Only on
the basis of such bald allegations, the Trial Court could not
have taken cognizance of the offences. The order taking
cognizance passed by the Trial Court will have a far reaching
consequences. Even though the charge sheet is filed by the
Investigating Officer, it was on the basis of the photocopies of
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
the documents said to have been forged. The original
documents were never considered by the Investigating Officer
nor the same were sent for scientific examination.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the photo
copies of the documents were sent for scientific examination to
a private laboratory for the purpose of getting favourable
report. He further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Ramachandra and Others Vs The State of
Karnataka and another1, deprecated the practice of referring
the documents to the private laboratories for verification and to
report regarding the allegations of forgery and concoction of
documents. A specific direction was issued to refer such
documents only to the State Forensic Laboratory to prevent
possible manipulation. Ignoring the said direction, the copy of
the disputed documents were sent to private laboratory. The
report submitted by such laboratory will not have any effect.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that accused
No.1 had approached the Company Law Board (CLB) for
transfer of shares in his favour on the basis of the documents
1
Crl.P.No.100822/2016 DD 23.11.2016
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
referred to above. However, the CLB directed accused No.1 to
approach the competent Civil Court, since the execution of the
documents was disputed. The said order was challenged before
this Court by filing Company Appeal No.8 of 2016. The same
came to be disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 05.08.2016. It was observed that if the Civil Court
declares the genuineness of the documents, the CLB will have
the authority to direct the Company to transfer the shares in
the name of accused No.1. Even though the Special Appeal
No.4388 of 2017 was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed
the suit OS No.3243 of 2017 against the informants and others
seeking declaration that MOU, share purchase agreement,
payment receipts and Special Power of Attorney dated
29.01.2015 were in fact executed by the informants who are
defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit and to direct them to transfer
the shares held with defendant No.1 - Company in favour of
accused No.1 by receiving the balance consideration amount
and also for other consequential reliefs. The said suit is still
pending for consideration.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
14. Learned counsel submitted that when the Civil
Court of competent jurisdiction is ceased off the matter for
considering similar facts and defence raised by the parties as to
whether the documents in question are concocted or the same
are genuine, initiation of the criminal proceedings cannot be
permitted, as the same would amount to abuse of process of
law. The dealings between the informants and accused No.1
are purely commercial, financial and civil in nature. It cannot
be given the color of the criminal offence and under such
circumstances, the criminal proceedings is to be quashed.
15. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab
and another2, in support of his contention and prays for
allowing the petitions by quashing the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of the Court and also to secure the
ends of justice.
16. Learned counsel for accused No.2 supporting the
contention of the learned counsel for accused No.1 sought for
allowing the petitions and to quash the criminal proceedings.
2
2021 SCC Online SC 1007
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
He further submitted that the only allegation against accused
No.2 is that he had signed the MOU and the share purchase
agreement as attesting witness.
17. Learned counsel drawn the attention of the Court to
Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, to refer to the definition
of the word 'attested' in relation to an instrument, means and
shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more
witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix
his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign
the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the
executant, or has received from the executant a personal
acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature
of such other person, and each of whom have signed the
instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be
necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have
been present at the same time, and no particular form of
attestation shall be necessary.
18. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in M Srikanth Vs State of Telangana
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
and another3, in support of his contention that no offence of
cheating, forgery could be made out against accused No.2, who
has only attested the document, that too, when civil suit is
pending for consideration regarding the genuineness of the
documents. No intention or ill-will could be imputed against
accused No.2 in signing the documents as a witness.
19. He also placed reliance on the decision of the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Vs State of Karnataka
and another4, to contend that the attesting witness was
neither a beneficiary nor the executant of the document, the
allegation of fraud and forgery was against the person who got
the documents executed who was the beneficiary under the
same. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings
against accused No.2 cannot be proceeded with. Accordingly,
he prays for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal
proceedings against accused No.2.
20. Learned counsel for accused Nos.5 and 6 adopted
the contention taken by the learned counsel for accused No.2
and prayed for allowing the petitions.
3
(2019) 10 SCC 373
4
Crl.P.No.100659/2023 DD 14.09.2023
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
21. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 opposing the petitions submitted that
specific allegations are made by the informants against accused
No.1 that he had stolen the securities, forged the signatures of
the informants, concocted the documents with an intention to
make wrongful gain. It is alleged against accused No.2 that he
was the legal advisor and even after knowing fully well about
the consequences, attested the forged documents. Similarly,
accused Nos.5 and 6 have also attested the documents
knowing fully well about its origin, thereby, the accused have
committed the offences.
22. Learned High Court Government Pleader further
submitted that a notice was issued to accused No.1, who is the
custodian of the original documents, by the Investigating
Officer, summoning to produce the original documents. But
accused No.1 avoided production of original documents and
produced only the attested copies. Those copies were sent for
scientific examination and the FSL report is received by the
Investigating Officer, which clearly states that the signatures
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
on the disputed documents are forged and a specific findings is
recorded that, it is accused No.1 who has done the signatures.
This report and the opinion of the expert prima facie discloses
commission of the offences by accused No.1 in collusion with
other accused.
23. Learned High Court Government Pleader further
submitted that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel
for accused No.2 are not applicable to the facts of the present
case, as the same were rendered under different set of facts.
In those cases, the accused have not attested the forged
documents, but it was alleged that they were the attesting
witnesses to the subsequent documents, which were executed
based on the forged documents. Under such circumstances,
the criminal proceedings against the attesting witnesses were
came to be dropped. But in the present case, the materials on
record disclose that, it was accused Nos.2 to 6 who have
subscribed their signatures as attesting witnesses to the forged
documents and hence they are also equally liable along with
accused No.1.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
24. Learned High Court Government Pleader further
submitted that even though the suit OS No.3243 of 2017 is
pending consideration before the Civil Court in respect of the
very same disputed documents, the same cannot be a ground
to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused.
She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
K G Premshanker Vs Inspector of Police and another5, to
contend that similar contention was raised before the Hon'ble
Apex Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, as civil
suit was pending before the competent court of civil
jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier
decisions, categorically held that, if the criminal case and civil
proceedings are for the same cause, the judgment of the Civil
Court would be relevant if any of the conditions of Sections 40
to 43 of Evidence Act are satisfied. It also categorically held
that it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive proof.
It further held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule that
could be laid down and that possibility of conflicting decision in
civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration for seeking
quashing of criminal proceedings.
5
(2002) 8 SCC 87
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
25. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted
that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to its earlier
decision in Karam Chand Ganga Prasad Vs Union of India6
and held that general observations made in the said case are
under the facts and circumstances of that case and that the
Court was not required to consider the earlier decision of the
Constitution Bench in M S Sheriff Vs State of Madras7, as
well as Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. Learned High
Court Government Pleader submitted that the Hon'ble Apex
Court categorically held that the civil and criminal proceedings
are required to be decided on the evidence, which may be
brought on record by the parties and refused to quash the
criminal proceedings.
26. Learned High Court Government Pleader also placed
reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Smt Vanitha and another Vs State of Karnataka and
another8, in support of her contention that the facts of the
case may give rise to setting of civil and the criminal law into
motion. Merely because, the issue projected as civil in nature,
6
(1970) 3 SCC 694
7
AIR 1945 SC 397
8
Crl.p.5522/2024 d.d.on 05.07.2024.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
the criminal proceedings initiated is not liable to be quashed.
Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court referred to various decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court to form an opinion that when prima facie
materials are placed before the Court to substantiate forging of
documents and taking benefit out of the same, the criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the civil suit
is pending consideration on similar set of facts.
27. Learned High Court Government Pleader also placed
reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Balaji Trading Company and Others Vs Saifulla Khan
Gafarkhan Savukar and another9, to support her contention
that the Court after referring to the decision of the Constitution
Bench in M S Sheriff (supra), recorded a categorical finding
that the criminal proceedings cannot be stalled, merely
because, the civil suit is pending with reference to same set of
documents. However, it has observed that it is not a hard and
fast rule that both the cases can continue together, but for
special consideration and on any peculiar circumstances, if the
civil case or the criminal proceedings which are so near for
9
ILR 2017 KAR 4397
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
disposal and a ground is made out, the Civil Court can stay its
proceedings till the criminal proceedings are concluded or vice
versa, as the case may be. Therefore, learned High Court
Government Pleader contended that simply because the civil
suit seeking declaration in respect of the same documents is
pending consideration, the criminal proceedings cannot be
quashed. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the petitions.
28. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopting the
contentions raised by learned High Court Government Pleader
submitted that specific allegations are made regarding forgery
and concoction of the documents by criminally conspiring
together. After accused No.1 losing his battle before CLB,
before this Court and also before Hon'ble Apex Court, has filed
the suit deliberately to stall the criminal liability. The
Investigating Officer has completed investigation and filed the
charge sheet. Specific overt act is alleged against each of the
accused on the basis of the statements of the witnesses. The
report from the handwriting expert was received in the year
2015 i.e., before the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Ramachandra (supra). The report of the scientific
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
expert discloses that forgery of the documents was by accused
No.1. Moreover, the Investigating Officer has sought for
permission to conduct further investigation under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C. When sufficient materials are placed before
the Court to consider the offences as alleged, the petitions are
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of
the petitions.
29. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
grounds to set aside the order dated 07.08.2015
taking cognizance of the offences alleged and to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
30. Respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition Nos.7789 of
2015, 8938 of 2018 and 6007 of 2015 as the first informant
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
filed the complaint alleging commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 403, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 120-B
of IPC. It is the allegation made by the informant that he had
received a registered post from accused No.1, in which, he
found certain documents. On going through the documents, the
informant found that 90% of the capital shares held by the
informant and his wife separately were transferred in favour of
accused No.1 and on the basis of the same, he is seeking
transfer of securities in his name. The informant found that the
Xerox copies of the documents produced are fake and
concocted documents and it was found that the signatures of
the informant and his wife were forged. The informant stated
that the share certificates belonging to him and his wife were
misplaced and suspected that the accused had found it and
misappropriated the same. Therefore, the informant requested
the police to register the case and to initiate legal action.
31. Respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition Nos.7790 of
2015, 8939 of 2018 and 2440 of 2020 being the wife of the
informant in the above referred Criminal Petitions has also filed
similar complaint making similar allegations against accused
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
No.1. The police registered the first information in Crime
Nos.143 and 144 of 2015 of Anekal Police Station and
undertook investigation. During investigation, it was found that
accused Nos.2 to 6 have also conspired with accused No.1 and
played major role in forging and concocting the documents.
Therefore, they were also arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6. After
investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
32. As per the charge sheet, the valuable share
certificates pertaining to the informants in both the cases were
found missing. With regard to the same, separate police
complaints came to be registered. Accused No.2 was working
as an Advocate and accused No.3 was also knowing about the
affairs of the Company. Taking advantage of dispute between
the family members of the informants, accused No.2 by
misusing his authority as an advocate, stolen the share
certificates belonging to both the informants.
33. It is alleged that accused No.1 in collusion with
accused Nos.2 to 6 concocted the share purchase agreement,
MOU and Special Power of Attorney, which are dated
29.01.2015, projecting that the documents were executed by
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
the informants. It is stated that after concocting share purchase
agreement dated 29.01.2015, accused No.1 forged the
signatures of CWs.1 and 2 as if they have executed the
documents, for which, accused Nos.2 and 4 are the attesting
witnesses. Similarly, accused No.1 concocted MOU dated
29.01.2015 in the names of the informants and forged their
signatures, for which, accused Nos.2 and 5 are the attesting
witnesses. Accused No.1 also concocted Special Power of
Attorney deed dated 29.01.2015 purported to have been
executed by the informants by forging their signatures, for
which, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the attesting witnesses. Thus,
it is the contention of the informants that even though they
have never executed any of these documents dated
29.01.2015, the accused have concocted the documents and
forged their signatures. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have attested
the forged and concocted documents to state that they have
seen CWs.1 and 2 subscribing their signatures on the
documents. It is stated that the accused by making use of
these concocted and forged documents committed cheating by
holding the original documents with them for the purpose of
misappropriating the valuable securities. This act of the
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
accused is a result of criminal conspiracy between one another
and thereby, they have committed the offences as stated
above.
34. It is also alleged that accused No.6 who was also
colluding with other accused concocted financial and tax due
diligence report dated 11.05.2015 to enable accused No.1 to
cheat the informants. In turn, accused No.1 making use of
these concocted and forged documents and the security
transfer forms, sought for entering his name in the securities as
the transferee of the share certificates. It is the specific
contention of the complainant that the stamp duty required for
transfer of shares was paid by accused No.1 only on
14.05.2015, even though, the documents styled as share
transfer agreement is dated 29.01.2015. It is also stated by
the informants that they have never received any amount
towards consideration as referred to in the concocted
documents.
35. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 approached
CLB seeking transfer of shares in his favour on the basis of
documents referred to above. The CLB directed accused No.1 to
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction, since execution of
the documents was in serious dispute. The said order passed
by CLB has reached finality, as the Company Appeal preferred
before this Court was disposed off by the Division Bench
upholding the order of CLB. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court has
not interfered with the said order in Special Appeal No.4388 of
2017.
36. It is also admitted that accused No.1 has filed the
suit OS No.3243 of 2017 against the informants and others
seeking declaration that those disputed documents dated
29.01.2015 were in fact executed by the informants after
receiving the consideration amount. The said suit for
declaration is still pending for consideration. Therefore, it is the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since
the comprehensive suit for declaration with regard to the
disputed documents is pending consideration before the Civil
Court, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.
37. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M Srikanth
(supra), in support of his contention. The facts and
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
circumstances of the case considered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court was entirely different as the parties to the litigation were
relatives and it is alleged that the Will was concocted by
accused No.1 in the said case, purported to have been
executed by his paternal grandmother, in his favour. Accused
No.1 said to have orally gifted the property and handed over
the possession in favour of the donee. On the basis of these
concocted documents, accused No.1 said to have created a
registered release deed in favour of accused No.4 therein, sub
leased the land in favour of accused No.5. To the said lease
deed, the other co-accused were the attesting witnesses. Based
on these facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court
placing reliance on its earlier decision in State of Haryana Vs
Bhajanlal10, found that the allegations made against the
attesting witnesses cannot amount to an offence as the
registered lease deed, to which, the co-accused are the
attesting witnesses was infact executed by accused No.1, even
though, the same was said to have been executed on the basis
of other forged documents, to which the co-accused are not
parties. Under such circumstances, it was held that the criminal
10
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
proceedings initiated against the attesting witnesses to the
lease deed is required to be quashed.
38. The facts and circumstances in the present case are
entirely different. It is the specific contention of the
complainant in the present case that accused No.1 concocted
share purchase agreement, MOU and Special Power of Attorney
by forging the signatures of the informants and for the said
concocted and forged documents, accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have
subscribed their signatures as attesting witnesses.
39. Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act refers to the
definition of the word 'attested' in relation to an instrument to
mean two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the
executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen
some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by
the direction of the executant, or has received from the
executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or
mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of
whom have signed the instrument in the presence of the
executant.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
40. As per the definition, the witness who attest the
signature is required to see the executant signing the
instrument and the attesting witness has signed the document
acknowledging the signature of the executant in his presence.
When it is the specific contention of the informants that they
have never signed any of these disputed documents and their
signatures were forged by accused No.1, the question of
accused Nos.2 to 6 seeing the informants signing the
documents or subscribing their signatures to those documents
does not arise. If it is to be accepted that the documents were
forged by accused No.1, automatically the other accused who
are the signatories as attesting witnesses are also liable for
their acts of subscribing the signatures, acknowledging the
signatures of the informants found on the disputed documents.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that accused Nos.2 to 6 are only the attesting
witnesses and they have not committed any offences, cannot
be accepted.
41. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is Rajesh (supra). The co-ordinate Bench of
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
this Court considered the facts of the said case, wherein, it is
alleged that accused No.1 and the complainant were relatives
and accused No.1 concocted the GPA deed said to have been
executed by the informant and on the basis of the said
concocted documents, he executed the sale deed to which the
other witnesses have subscribed their signatures as attesting
witnesses. On these facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in M Srikanth (supra) held that no offence is made out
against the attesting witnesses to the registered sale deed. But
the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for
the reasons discussed above.
42. The other contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that since the Trial Court has ceased off
the matter, where comprehensive suit for declaration regarding
the disputed document is pending, the criminal proceedings
initiated is liable to be quashed. In this regard, learned High
Court Government Pleader has placed reliance the decision of
the Hon'bel Apex Court in K G Premshanker (supra), wherein,
a similar contention was taken that when a civil suit is pending,
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
the decision rendered by the Civil Court will prevail and
therefore, criminal case pending against the accused are
required to be quashed.
43. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and after referring to its earlier
decision in Kharkan Vs State of UP11, categorically held that
if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same
cause, the judgment of the Civil Court would be relevant if
conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act are
satisfied. But it cannot be said that the same would be
conclusive, except as provided in Section 41, which provides
that the judgment would be the conclusive proof of what is
stated therein. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in
each and every case, the first question which would require
consideration is - whether the judgment, order or decree is
relevant, if relevant - its effect. It also held that it may be
relevant for a limited purpose, such as motive, or as a fact in
issue, which would depend upon facts of each case. The Hon'ble
Apex Court also made it clear that there is no hard and fast rule
that can be laid down that possibility of conflicting decisions in
11
AIR 1965 SC 83
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
the Civil and Criminal Court is a relevant consideration for
quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it is held that
both civil and criminal proceedings are required to be decided
on merits on the basis of the evidence that are placed on
record.
44. Learned High Court Government Pleader also places
reliance on the decision in Smt Vanitha (supra), where the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court referring to various decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject formed an opinion that
when prima facie materials are placed before the Court to
constitute the offence of forgery of the documents, simply
because a civil suit is also pending consideration in respect of
the same document, it will not be a ground to quash the
criminal proceedings.
45. Learned High Court Government Pleader also places
reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Balaji Trading Company (supra), where the Court has
discussed at length about the effect of initiating both civil and
criminal proceedings in respect of the documents which are
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
alleged to be forged or concocted and held in paragraph 13 as
under:
"13. The second ground urged before this
Court by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is
that, when the Appellate (Civil) Court is ceased of
the matter and the Trial (Civil) Court has given its
opinion that Exs.D1 to D10 are forged documents,
but it failed to refer the complaint to the competent
Court and further an appeal is already pending
before the First Appellate Court, until the disposal of
the civil matter, criminal case cannot be launched or
proceeded with. This argument is also in my opinion,
not tenable as the proceedings before the Civil Court
and Criminal Court are altogether different. It is
evident from the legal principles that the documents
which are produced before the Civil Court can be
proved to be forged by means of preponderance of
probabilities, wherein such offences have to be
proved with reference to the documents before the
Criminal Court beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
more responsibility is casted upon the complainant
to prove that those documents are forged, in a
Criminal case and in such an eventuality, the
accused will get sufficient opportunity to question
the said disputed documents. Further, added to that,
this particular point raised by the Learned Counsel is
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above said decision at Paras-32 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra after
considering its previous judgment in M.S. Sheriff Vs.
State Of Madras, wherein it has laid down the
principles, which reads as under:-
"32.Coming to the last contention that an
effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings
between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary
to point out that the standard of proof required in
the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases
are decided on the basis of preponderance of
evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden
lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable
doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory
provision nor any legal principle that the findings
recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final
or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be
decided on the basis of the evidence adduced
therein. While examining a similar contention in an
appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint
under Section 476 of old Code, the following
observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S.
Sheriff vs. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397 give a
complete answer to the problem posed :
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
"(15) As between the civil and the criminal
proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal
matters should be given precedence. There is some
difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on
this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but
we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting
decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant
consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality
when it expressly refrains from making the decision
of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant,
except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence
or damages. The only relevant consideration here is
the likelihood of embarrassment.
(16) Another factor which weighs with us is
that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is
undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait
till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the
crime. The public interests demand that criminal
justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty
should be punished while the events are still fresh in
the public mind and that the innocent should be
absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and
impartial trial. Another reason is that it is
undesirable to let things slide till memories have
grown too dim to trust.
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.
Special considerations obtaining in any particular
case might make some other course more expedient
and just. For example, the civil case or the other
criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to
make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give
precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476.
But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits
should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have
finished."
From the above, it is very clear that the
criminal proceedings cannot be stalled merely
because the civil suit is also pending with reference
to those documents. However, it is made clear that
there is no hard-and-fast rule that both the cases
can continue together, but for special consideration
and on any special circumstances, if the civil case
and the criminal proceedings which are so near for
disposal, and a ground is made out to stay, either of
the proceedings in such an eventuality, the
concerned civil court can stay its proceedings, till the
criminal proceedings are finished or vice versa as the
case may be under the special and peculiar
circumstances of the case."
In view of the above, it is held that the bar under Section
195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. is not at all attracted to the facts of the
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
said case and accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of the
criminal proceedings came to be dismissed.
46. It is the specific contention of the learned High
Court Government Pleader that the disputed documents were
referred for scientific examination and the report of the expert
was obtained by the Investigating Officer before filing the
chargesheet. A copy of the FSL report is produced for perusal of
the Court. The handwriting expert after verifying the admitted
and disputed signatures found on the documents, formed an
opinion, which reads as under:
"All the admitted and disputed signatures
are found similar and are executed by one and
the same person and are found sufficient for the
purpose of scientific examination and comparison
for advanced electronic analysis."
47. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that, prima
facie, the disputed documents does not bear the signatures of
the informants. But on the other hand, the disputed signatures
found on the documents were made by accused No.1. When
such clinching prima facie materials are placed before the
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
Court, I do not find any justification for seeking quashing of the
criminal proceedings by the accused.
48. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
on the decision of this Court in Ramachandra (supra), to
contend that since the disputed documents were referred for
scientific examination to a private lab, which was deprecated by
this Court and hence, the petition is liable to be allowed. The
co-ordinate Bench of this Court has referred the petition
seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance for the offence
considering that initially, 'B' report was filed by the
Investigating Officer and later, the 'B' report was rejected and
cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. It was noticed
that there was a procedural lapse on the part of the learned
Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence. It is
observed that the police appears to be partisan in supporting
the accused and the investigation was not conducted
dispassionately. Under such circumstances, the Court observed
that there is serious error in referring the disputed documents
for verification to private laboratory instead of sending it to
forensic laboratory run by the Government.
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
49. In the present case, no such contentions were
raised till date. Even if the accused takes a stand regarding
authenticity of the FSL report issued by the private laboratory,
they are free to take the same before the Trial Court for any
justifiable cause. But it cannot be held that the report
submitted by any private laboratory is to be binned without
considering the same. There must be strong reasons either to
reject or to disbelieve such FSL report. We are all aware of the
number of Forensic Laboratory set up by the Government and
its conditions in the State in particular, and in the Country in
general. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the FSL report
submitted by the private laboratory is to be ignored do not
sound reasons to this Court. I do not find any justification to
reject the FSL report at this stage.
50. In view of the discussions held above, I do not find
any merits in the contention raised by the petitioners and
hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35865
CRL.P No. 8939 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 6007 of 2015
CRL.P No. 7789 of 2015
AND 3 OTHERS
answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G. UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34