Karnataka High Court
Smt. P Anuradha W/O N.A.Keshavamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2016
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6170/2013
BETWEEN:
SMT. P ANURADHA
W/O N.A.KESHAVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ADVOCATE & NOTARY,
NO.A-96/3, G-1 STREET,
JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR,
H.A.L. III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560075
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY: SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION
DHARWAD,
BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
DHARWAD-580008
2. ANANT TERAGUNDI
S/O. NARAYAN RAO TERAGUNDI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.1098, ADARSHA LAYOUT,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560010
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
:2:
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.506/12 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, DHARWAD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.3. The case of the complainant is that he has six brothers and sisters. There are some ancestral properties. That a Power of Attorney was granted/prepared in the name of his sister, which is executed by the complainant, his five brothers and presented before the petitioner herein for execution. The same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dharwad. Thereafter, the suit was filed by the plaintiff not to effect the khata in the name of one Ratan Laxmansa Kabadi and accordingly filed a suit in O.S.No.88/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad. The complainant came to know that petitioner, who is the notary, has colluded with the others and has executed a false General Power of Attorney, which contains the forged signature of the complainant and others. The notary in collusion with the :3: others with an intention to cheat the complainant has acted in a fraudulent and dishonest manner. Based on the complaint, investigation was initiated and charge sheet has been filed against three accused including the petitioner, who is a notary, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 419, 420, 120(B) R/w. Section 34 of IPC. Seeking to quash the proceedings, the present petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only a notary. Therefore she cannot be held liable for any offences alleged against her. That she has verified the signatures and she has performed the duty under the Act. Hence she cannot be held liable for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 465, 468, 419 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents disputes the same.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition for the serious allegations made against the petitioner. The offences alleged :4: against the petitioner are forgery of public register, forgery for the purpose of cheating, cheating etc. These are serious allegations cast upon the duty of the notary, which she has wrongly performed. It cannot be said that she is protected under the provisions of Notary Act for performing the duties as mandated in the statute. The acts of collusion, cheating and forgery are alleged against her. Therefore, quashing of the proceedings based on the available material would be wholly inappropriate. The petitioner has necessarily to face the trial. Hence I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab