IMPORTANT POINT
Where factual matrix clearly shows commission of offences the Court should not exercise power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the stage of taking cognizance / framing of charges.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Order of learned Single Judge by which proceedings initiated against the respondents in CC No. 1613/1998 on the file of the CJM, Tumkur, were set aside is subject matter of challenge, in this appeal.

3. Background facts in nutshell essentially are as follows:-

The Inspector of Police, Fraud Squad, COD submitted a charge-sheet against the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as "accused") in the aforesaid case alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short IPC ). The said charge-sheet was submitted after investigation, on receipt of complaint made by one Police Inspector attached to the Fraud Squad, COD, Bangalore. Cognizance was taken by the CJM. Respondents -accused Nos. 1 & 2 filed application before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ). They inter alia contended that the allegations made have not been borne out by the materials/evidence collected during investigation and continuance of proceedings against them would be against the ends of justice. Learned single Judge noted that the substance of charge-sheet as stated in Form No. 7 was to the effect that for the year 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the Excise Contractors Ranganatha Group were awarded the contract to act as excise contractors for the Tumkur District. The said Ranganatha Group sub-leased by way of General Power of Attorney (in short GPA ) to accused No. 1 to act as Excise Contractor of Koratagere of Tumkur District. As a part of the arrangement, the said accused No. 1 M. Devendarappa was required to produce bank guarantee for the whole of Tumkur District at the rate of 1/10th amounting to Rs. 39,06,000/- from Nationalized Bank for the year 1992-1993. Similar was the position for the year 1993-1994 except that the original contractors were Yallappa and Ramachandrappa and the Bank guarantee required to be furnished was for an amount of Rs. 64,29,500/-. Allegations were to the effect that "Letter Heads" of Karnataka Bank Ltd., were removed surreptitiously and with fake seals, fake bank guarantees were typed out on the "Stamp Papers" purchased from "Koratagere Stamp Vendor" and were signed by accused No. 2 posing to be the Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Koratagere Branch. These bank guarantees were submitted as if they were genuine in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Tumkur. On 17.7.93, accused No. 1 took Excise Sub-Inspector to a house at Asok Nagar, Tumkur where he introduced accused No. 2 to be the Manager of the Bank and caused service of a notice which was addressed to the Manager of the Bank by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Under the above circumstances, it was alleged that with fraudulent intention, fake bank guarantees, confirmation letters, extension letters were submitted and there was impersonation. Therefore, it was stated that offences were punishable as noted above.

4. Learned Single Judge analysed the background facts and came to hold that the involvement of excise officials cannot be ruled out and when they have been indicated to be witnesses, likelihood of prejudice cannot be ruled out. It was also noted that there was no "definite evidence to show that accused Nos. 1 & 2 were directly involved. Finally, it was observed that there was no material to hold that the accused persons had committed theft of "Letter Heads" from Karnataka Bank Ltd., and/or they had committed forgery for the purpose of cheating or have used genuine forged documents or had cheated the government. Finally, it was observed that there was no evidence to infer common intention to commit such offences.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order directing quashing of the proceedings, this appeal has been filed. In support of the appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State of Karnataka that the very approach of learned Single Judge is unjustified, illegal and