O R D E R

As these two petitions are arising out of Crime No.132/2023 of Basavan Bagewadi police, Vijayapura District, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.200948/2023 is filed by accused No.3 and Crl.P.No.201133/2023 is filed by accused No.4 under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and complaint in Cr.No.132/2023 of Basavan Bagewadi Police station for the offences punishable under sections 465, 471, 474, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-

State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 31.05.2023, respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint against these petitioners and accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that the complainant owns agricultural land bearing Sy.No.2671/3 measuring 6 acres at Managuli Village, Basavan Bagewadi Village, same was purchased under registered sale deed dated 04.09.2020 from Smt. Jyothi, W/o. Balanagouda Patil. The khata and mutation were transferred in the name of the complainant. His Aadhaar Card number is 990917960022 and pan card number is AIPPP8988H. But, on 20.03.2023, accused No.1 Nazeer Hussain, resident of Alampura Pet by forging documents in respect of land of the complainant, transferred the aforesaid land in his favour by impersonation and furnished forged Aadhaar No.843682386746, thereby, cheated the complainant and caused monetary loss to him, used forged document as genuine documents. Accused No.3 Syed Badruddin Kwadi and Accused No.2 M.G. Koulgara, stood as witnesses to the sale deed and Accused No.4 M.R. Rathod, legal practitioner, drafted the forged sale deed and other documents in favour of accused No.1.

Hence, the complainant filed a complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint against the petitioners and other persons without making purchaser as party to the sale deed, it shows that in order to harass the petitioners, respondent No.2 has filed this complaint. In the complaint, respondent No.2 made false and frivolous allegation against these petitioners. It is contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 are witnesses to sale deed and accused No.4, who is practicing advocate, drafted the sale deed. Therefore, they had no malafide intention in preparing sale deed in question. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law.

Hence, they prayed to allow the petitions.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not filed their objections.

7. On perusal of the FIR and complaint, the complainant made allegation against accused No.1 that he created documents in respect of the land of the complainant and transferred said property to his name, to which, accused No.3 stood as witness and accused No.4 drafted the sale deed in favour of accused No.1.

8. From the perusal of the complaint and FIR, it establishes that, role of accused No.3 is that, he affixed his signature as attesting witness to sale deed and accused No.4, drafted the sale deed, being a legal Practitioner. The very fact that accused Nos.3 and 4 participated in preparation of forged documents and used said documents as genuine documents in order to cheat the complainant is not in dispute. At this juncture, accused Nos.3 and 4 have taken the contention that their role is very limited, they had no malafide intention in creating sale deed. Thereby, accused Nos.3 and 4 are disputing question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima-facie case is to be seen. Similar ratio is laid down in the case of M/s. NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR

2021 SC 1918.

9. Further, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground