Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum
Pradeepa .P.N, S/O. Ninganna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Cr.No.56/2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Madikeri, for the offences punishable under Sections 463 , 464, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. A written complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that, on the basis of a forged representation, the petitioner, by misusing his position as a Government Surveyor, prepared and issued forged notices intimating the date of survey. The complainant, who resides abroad, has categorically disputed his presence in India and denied the signatures appearing on the said notices. It is further alleged that, on the strength of the forged representation, the notices were issued and statements were recorded. Consequently, respondent No.2 filed a written complaint before the jurisdictional police, alleging forgery, impersonation, and misuse of his Aadhaar credentials, contending that the petitioner forged his signatures on the representation and notices with intent to cheat.
3. The present petition is filed by accused No.2 (the Surveyor) seeking quashing of the proceedings primarily on two g
Prosecution of public servants for actions within official duties requires prior sanction under Cr.P.C., which was not obtained, resulting in quashing of the case.
Prosecution of public servants for actions in official duty requires prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., necessitating clear evidence of involvement in fraud for cognizance to stand.
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 concealment of prior ownership during a property sale constitutes prima facie evidence of cheating, while insufficient evidence exists for forgery charges.
A malafide prosecution cannot stand if the alleged misconduct merely arises from supervisory deficiencies lacking substantive evidence of criminal conspiracy.
Failure to establish a prima facie case under Sections 417 and 465 of the IPC; lack of necessary sanction for prosecution of public servant mandates quashing of proceedings.
Absent core elements of deception and harm, allegations of forgery and cheating in the context of legal heirs and land mutation do not warrant criminal prosecution.
The court held that criminal proceedings should not be misused for civil disputes, emphasizing the need for caution to prevent abuse of process.
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
