Karnataka High Court
Smt. Veena G Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4961 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Veena G. Bhat
W/o Late Ganapaiah
Aged about 52 years
R/at No.79, 5th Main
I.W. Layout, J.B. Kaval
Bengaluru - 560 096.
2. Sri. T. Vasan
S/o. Late. Thippaiah
Aged about 57 years
R/at No.64, 10th 'A' Cross
West of Chord Road
Mahalakshmipuram
Bengaluru - 560 086. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. B. V. Acharya, Senior Advocate a/w
Sri. P. Usman, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Subramanya Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
2
Attached to High Court of Karnataka
High Court Building
Annexe, Bengaluru. ...Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B. G., HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the additional charge sheet dated
13.05.2011 filed by the respondent police and the order
dated 08.06.2011 passed in C.C.No.13956/2009 on the file
of the IV ACMM, Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Final Hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos.5 and 6 against whom additional charge sheet is filed under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3
3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. B. V. Acharya for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent.
4. Outline facts of the case are that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Secretary of Sri Vijayalakshmi Education Society(R), Bengaluru, FIR was registered in Cr.No.264/2001 against accused No.1 under Sections 465, 468, 471, 406 and 420 of IPC. The allegations against accused No.1 were that during her tenure as Head Mistress of Vani Kannada Higher Primary School, Laggere, she prepared fabricated bills, relating to salary payments of the teachers of Sri Vijayalakshmi Education Society, forged the signatures of the educational authorities on the said bills and presented the same to the Treasury, and collected the tokens and the cheque from the Treasury and presented the same before the Karnataka Bank and credited the proceeds to her personal account.
4
5. On collecting the necessary evidence in proof of these charges, a charge sheet was laid against accused No.1 on 26.06.2009. About one and a half years thereafter, Investigating Officer suo motu took up further investigation and submitted a supplementary charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court on 13.05.2011, arraying the present petitioners as well as three other persons as accused Nos.2 to 6 under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 read with 34 of IPC.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the circumstances of the case did not call for any further investigation under Section 73(8) of Cr.P.C. Initially, the allegations of forgery and cheating were directed only against accused No.1. All the materials required to substantiate the charges were collected during the investigation by the earlier Investigating Officer. Petitioner No.1 was infact examined during the investigation and was cited as CW19 as one of the material 5 witnesses. At that juncture, there were no allegations whatsoever against the petitioners that either petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2 were in any way involved in the falsification of the records or in the alleged act of cheating. Therefore, there was no necessity at all to conduct any further investigation. About ten years after the submission of the FIR, additional charge sheet has been filed against the present petitioners. Even in the said charge sheet, there are no allegation that the petitioners herein are the participants in the act of cheating or fabrication of the records. The only allegation made against the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 being the Office Clerk and petitioner No.2 being the Office Assistant presented the said cheque to the personal account of accused No.1 contrary to the Rules.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is nothing on record to indicate what were the Office Rules required to be followed by the 6 accused persons. In any event, these allegations do not constitute any of the ingredients of the offences either under Section 409 or 420 of IPC. No fraudulent or dishonest intention could be imputed to the petitioners. There is no material to show that petitioners acted with criminal intent and therefore, there was no justification whatsoever either to submit additional charge sheet against the petitioners or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the alleged offences and hence, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned. In support of his argument, he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Kumar Bose vs State of Bihar reported in (1974) 4 SCC 616.
8. Meeting the above arguments, learned HCGP submitted that the Investigating Officer having discovered additional evidence has chosen to investigate into the matter and has laid additional charge sheet which clearly 7 disclose the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. It has transpired that the petitioners herein presented the cheque to the personal account of accused No.1 knowing fully well that the cheque in question was issued towards the salary of the employees of a different institution and therefore, criminal intention is loomed large in the case of the petitioners and hence, there is no reason to quash the above proceedings.
9. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
10. As could be seen from the additional charge sheet, the only allegation made against the present petitioners is that they credited the cheque in question to the personal account of accused No.1. There are no allegations whatsoever that the petitioners herein were the parties to the fabrication of the original salary bills. The specific allegations in this regard are directed only against 8 accused No.1. Even the learned HCGP has conceded the position that the supplementary charge sheet does not contain any material to show that the petitioners herein have participated in any manner either in the preparation of the bills or submission of the said bills to the Treasury. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioners herein were aware of the fact that the said cheque was got up by exercise of fraud or forgery by accused No.1, there was no occasion for the petitioners to suspect the said cheque. Petitioners having acted in the regular course of their duties are not expected to inquire into the circumstances in which the said cheque was handed over to them by accused No.1.
11. The circumstances which prompted the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation has remained a mystery. The material indicates that solely on the basis of the statement of the Bank Manager the petitioners are implicated in the alleged offence. But the 9 circumstances brought on record do not indicate that the petitioners were motivated by any dishonest intention or that they have derived any benefit from the above transaction. The material produced along with the additional charge sheet even it accepted on their face value would at the most point out that the petitioners were either negligent or inefficient in discharging their official duties. Without anything more, it is not proper to impute any guilty intention to the petitioners. On scanning the material, I am of the view that the material on record is not sufficient to make out any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners would tantamount to abuse of process of law and therefore, liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Additional charge sheet submitted against the petitioners herein for the offences Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 read with 34 of IPC and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, 10 presently pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.13956/2009, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN/PYR