The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of prima facie evidence and mala-fide intention in a civil dispute can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Uma, J.

1. The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 in crime No. 12/2018 of Khade Bazar Police Station registered on the basis of the order dtd. 18/1/2018 passed by the learned JMFC-III Court at Belagavi in PCR No. 1/2018, for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 an 420 of IPC, are before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them, in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No. 2 being the complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No. 1/2018 before the trial court against accused Nos.1 to 7 alleging commission of the offence as stated above. It is contended that respondent No. 2 had filed a suit in O.S.No. 43/2009 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, seeking declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property as per the oral gift by his father and also to declare that the sale deed executed by his father in favour of accused No. 1 is illegal, void and is not binding on him. The said suit came to be dismissed, vide judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2013. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal in RFA No. 4095/2013 before this court and an interim application under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC was filed seeking stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is stated that this court had passed an order to maintain statusquo regarding title and possession of the suit property. During pendency of the first appeal, respondent No. 2 came to know on 18/6/2015 that accused No. 1 and her husband along with others break opened the lock put to the suit property without permission and trespassed into the same. When this fact was brought to the notice of the court by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, the contempt proceedings were initiated against accused No. 1.

3. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru, Department of Stamps and Registration, Government of Karnataka for getting certified copy of the document, which was produced by the contemnor/accused No. 1 before the court in the first appeal, styled as lease deed. Respondent No. 2 received the copy of the document engrossed on an E-Stamp Paper, which is completely different from the copy of the E-Stamp Paper produced before this court in the regular first appeal. From this document, it was evident that, all the accused in collusion with each other, concocted, forged, fabricated and manufactured the document and produced before this court with malafide intention to obtain a favourable order and to get possession of the suit property and they have played fraud upon the court and also caused obstacle in the stream of justice delivery system. They have also concocted rent receipts to justify their possession over the property. Thereby the accused have mislead the High Court to save their skin. Complaints were addressed to several authorities including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and also Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka.

4. It is stated that, a complainant was also lodged with Khade Bazar Police Station, Belagavi to enquire about the forgery and concoction of the document. When no steps were taken by the police on the said complaint, the complainant filed a private complaint, seeking initiation of criminal proceedings. It is stated that in the meantime, Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru, addressed a letter to the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, stating that, on going through the reports of the Area Manager (E-Stamping), Bengaluru and the authorized signatory of Karnataka State Souharda Federal Co-operative Ltd., Bengaluru, prima facie it appears that E-Stamp purchased by Chandrumal Marandma Parchani i.e., accused No. 2 and used for rent agreement is a fake E-Stamp. It is also stated