Point of Law:Forged signature – Quash of proceedings - Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and cannot answer with regard to the disputed questions involved in the matter.

ORDER :

1. Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet in Crime No.546/2018 registered by Mahadevapura Police and the order of taking cognizance dated 16.11.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused and the complainants are the partners of the partnership firm and they entered into joint development agreement in respect of Survey No.88/1 to the extent of 37.04 guntas of land. There were differences between them and hence in terms of mutual settlement between the parties, complainant No.1 executed 11 sale deeds on 28.09.2017. It is the allegation that while taking the signature in respect of those 11 sale deeds, the petitioner herein and other accused persons have forged the signature of the complainant and obtained the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. Hence, the complaint is lodged on 08.11.2018 that the petitioner forged the signature of the complainant and executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. The police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. Hence, the petitioner herein is before this Court praying to quash the proceedings.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is also filed in respect of particular sale deed and the same is pending. When the civil suit is pending, there cannot be any parallel proceedings against the petitioner and it amounts to an abuse of process. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 3 SCC 794 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court has held that when there is a dispute with regard to the issue as to genuineness of documents, forgery of which was the basis of the criminal proceedings, was pending consideration in civil suit, FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue in the present case as it would prejudice the interest of parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that there cannot be separate parallel proceedings and if the criminal proceedings is continued, it amounts to an abuse of process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel would also submit that the FSL report is obtained based on the xerox documents and the same cannot be a basis to proceed against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the complaint was given on 08.11.2018 and suit was filed on 19.11.2018. The civil suit is subsequent to the filing of the complaint. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The police during the course of investigation have obtained the FSL report. The learned counsel would submit that when the accused was summoned to produce the original document, he did not produce the same, instead he made the submission before the Investigating Officer that the said document is lost. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner that xerox documents was sent for FSL cannot be accepted. The learned counsel would submit that accused Nos.3 and 4 are the attesting witnesses to the said documents and they are absconding. The learned counsel would submit that accused No.2 has already approached this Court by filing criminal petition before this Court in Crl.P.No.1768/2019 and this Court rejected the petition observing that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the Trial Court and the same is pending before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.57765/2019. While rejecting the petition, liberty is given