Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The submission of Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in a proceeding in W.P.No.50129/2012, the said Narasimhaiah, whose death certificate is alleged to have been forged, had approached this Court challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner and this Court, considering that the Deputy Commissioner did not have power to review his own order, had quashed the said order, allowed the petition and directed the name of Narasimhaiah to be restored in the revenue records.

8. In that background, Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel submits that the orders of review of the Deputy Commissioner having been quashed, the criminal proceedings cannot survive and on that basis, he submits that the above petitions are

- 13 -

required to be allowed and the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed.

9. Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP would however contend that the subject matters of the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and Civil Appeal are different from that of the criminal complaint. In those matters what was in question was the power of the Deputy Commissioner to review his own order. Whereas in the present complaint, what is in question are the serious offences alleged under Sections 465, 466, 468, 470, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC as regards the creation of false documents as also an offence under Section 192-A of the KLR Act, 1964 for grabbing the land of the government. The aspect of whether there is any forgery, fabrication of documents is required to be investigated and as