Back
M. G. UMA
B. Manjunath S/o. Mr. Balakrishna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner-accused No.1 in Criminal Petition Nos.7789 of 2015, the petitioner -accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.8938 of 2018 and the petitioners -accused Nos.5 and 6 in Criminal Petition No.6007 of 2015 are seeking to set aside the order dated 07.08.2015 taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and to quash the entire criminal proceedings in CC No.761 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short 'the Trial Court'). They have also filed Criminal Petition Nos.7790 of 2015, 8939 of 2018 and 2440 of 2020 respectively seeking similar relief in CC No.762 of 2015 before the Trial Court.
2. Crime No.143 of 2015 of Anekal Police Station was registered on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant -Dr.Madhukar G Angur, whereas Crime No.144 of 2015 of Anekal Police Station was registered on the basis of the first information lodged by his wife B S Priyanka. In both the complaints, the informants have made similar allegations with respect to very same documents for having conspired together, forged the signatures of the complaina
The existence of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings for the same cause, as the standards of proof differ between civil and criminal cases.
The court established that pending civil proceedings do not preclude criminal liability for forgery and conspiracy when sufficient prima facie evidence exists.
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.
The court established that civil disputes can coexist with criminal allegations, and the merits of such allegations must be determined through trial, not preemptively dismissed.
Mere pendency of suit cannot be made a ground for quashing criminal proceedings – Entire prosecution story could not be disbelieved on the ground of delay.
The court held that distinctions between civil and criminal transactions may not bar criminal proceedings when fraud or wrongdoing is alleged, requiring an investigation into the claims.
Criminal proceedings cannot pursue allegations of forgery if the accused were not the makers of the documents, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
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.
The court established that allegations of forgery and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing for criminal proceedings to continue.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
