A court may not quash criminal proceedings merely based on accusations of falsehood; evidence establishing a prima facie case necessitates trial to ascertain involvement.

ORDER :

J.M. KHAZI, J.

In these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 have sought for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.5752/2022 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 464 , 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 418, 420, 120(B), 201 r/w Section 34 IPC, (arising out of Cr.No.58/2020 Doddaballapura Town PS).

2. In support of the petitions, the petitioners have contended that on the comprehensive perusal of the complaint and charge sheet, there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners. False allegations are made as to the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the offences. The allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable and as such liable to be quashed. In the complaint, there is no reference to the involvement of the petitioners. Without any basis, they had been arraigned as accused. It is alleged that one Nagaraj has attested the document dated 02.12.2019. However, accused No.9 Nagaraj is not the said attesting witness. His name is inserted in the application filed before the Court seeking permission to take accused No.2 to the custody. Even accused No.2 does not state about the complicity of the petitioners. Even if the entire allegations are accepted as true, then also there is no prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in O L. Rajendra Vs. State of Karnataka (O.L.Rajendra), [Crl.P.No.2816/2017 dated 25.11.2021].

4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 for State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that complainant/respondent No.2 is the Sub- registrar, office of Sub-registrar Doddabalapur. On 03.12.2019, he received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C from the respondent No.1 Police in connection with investigation in Cr.No.109/2019, for the offences punishable Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC. The said notice was accompanied by copies of certain documents and enquiry was made as to whether the property referred to in the said documents is registered and if so to furnish certified copy of it. Since the said documents accompanied with the notice were bearing seal of office of the sub registrar, he cross verified volumes of book No.1 maintained in the office and found that no such documents was registered.

4.1 He enquired with the staff working in office and came to know that earlier also there was some incident of concoction of the documents. He found that documents accompanying the notice is appended with form No.22 certified by his office, he cross verified entries for the previous and subsequent date and found that one B A Prasanna Kumar has applied for 6-7 sets of certified copies of the documents. He has also collected certain documents through RTI Act. He has also collected certified copy of LTI register of documents No.634/77-78.

4.2 It is further stated in the complaint that whenever a documents is registered corresponding entries would be made in following Registers:

i) Daily register A-register

ii) Cash book

iii) Thumb impression register

iv) Index-02 volume

v) Permanent documents register

vi) Deed writers register

4.3 However, there is no entry with regard to the document, which B A Prasanna Kumar has collected in the following registers:

i) Book- No.1, 22102/1987-88 Gift Deed.

ii) Book- No.1, 2586/1991-92 sale d