IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Appreciation of Evidence – High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on.
(2) Inherent jurisdiction – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
(3) Allegations in the FIR – The petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered.
(4) Quashing – Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.

ORDER (CAV)

Petitioner/accused No.4 is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.123 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 465, 468 and 34 of the IPC and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District.

2. Heard Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Sammith S, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:-

A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent alleging that property bearing Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas; Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 acre; Sy.No.21/4 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy.No.21/5 measuring 1 acre belonged to his father-in-law one Sri Yalamanchali Jithin Kumar. The allegation is that the property purchased in the year 2019 was the subject matter of General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant to administrate the property, as his father-in-law is a resident of Andhra Pradesh. The case of the complainant projected is that, on 08-08-2024 he discovers that one Y.M.Jithin Kumar, son of Janardhana Rao, accused No.1 has entered into a sale agreement with accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the afore-mentioned property for a consideration of Rs.1.15 crores.

4. A crime then comes to be registered in Crime No.123 of 2024 on the aforesaid facts, on the ground of impersonation of Sri Yalamanchali Jithin Kumar and execution of agreement of sale on forged documents. The sale deed is not yet taken place. The petitioner is accused No.4 and the Sub-Registrar of Doddaballapura is accused No.5. The two are drawn into the web of crime on the score that the petitioner/accused No.4 is a deed writer. It is the petitioner who has scribed the deed along with a seal of his in the deed of him being the deed writer. The moment crime is registered, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is only a deed writer. Whatever document is given to him, on those documents he would write the deed. Beyond this, there is no role of the petitioner. All that the petitioner has to see was revenue records and the RTC that were standing in the name of a particular party. He has verified those documents and written the deed. It is his submission that in terms of the Karnataka Registration (Deed Writers’ Licence) Rules, 1979 (‘the Rules’ for short) beyond what the petitioner has done, he has no role to play. He would, therefore, submit that none of the allegations are attributable to him. It can, at best, be qua accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Sammith S appearing for the 2nd respondent would take this Court through the statement of objections to contend that Sri Yalamanchali Jithin Kumar has been impersonated by some person said to be the resident of Bengaluru. The actual person is a resident of Hyderabad, Telangana. He would, therefore, contend that there is prima facie evidence of impersonation and execution of agreement. The petitioner’s role is not limited to writing whatever any person who come to him to write. The statute enjoins certain duty on the deed writers. The petitioner has deviated that duty. Therefore, the offences under Sections 409, 419, 465 and 468 are prima facie met against the petitioner as well. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a licensed deed writer having secured a licence under the Rules. The Rules are framed exercising the powers conferred upon the State under the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act’ for short).