The legal principle established is that allegations of forgery must be supported by credible evidence, failing which, proceedings may constitute an abuse of process.

CAV ORDER

1. Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.97/2024 registered at Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST (PoA) Act’, for short) and Sections 465 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC ’, for short).

2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. Hasmath Pasha for Smt. Moulyapoorna R., advocate for petitioner/accused No.1 in W.P. No.28892/2024, learned counsel Sr. Ajay Kadkol T. for petitioner/accused No.2 in W.P. No.28281/2024, Sri. Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2, party-in-person in both the petitions. Perused the material on record.

3. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are as under:

4. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against accused No.1 Vilas Bormaiji Oswal with Jayanagar Police, registered as Crime No.126/24, on 06.04.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Sections 504 and 506 of IPC . Following the registration of the FIR, an absconding charge sheet was filed against the said accused in Spl.Case No.943/2024 on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge in Bengaluru. Criminal Miscellaneous No.4717/2024 filed by accused seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial Court on 11.06.2024. The trial Court issued NBW on 19.06.2024. In the meanwhile, accused preferred Criminal Petition No.5584/2024 for quashing of the charge sheet and all proceedings in Spl.Case No.943/2024. He filed Criminal Appeal No.1090/2024, to set aside the rejection of bail order by the Sessions Court and to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. In Criminal Petition No.5584/2024, accused filed an application for stay of all proceedings in Spl.Case No.943/2024, accompanied by an affidavit. In the said case, an interim stay order was granted on 10.07.2024. The complainant entered appearance and obtained the certified copy of the affidavit filed along with the application for stay as well as the vakalat filed by the accused in Crl.P. No.5584/2024. Upon comparing the signature on the vakalat with the signature on the affidavit accompanying the I.A., complainant discovered a stark difference, which led him to believe that the signature on the affidavit dated 13.06.2024 was not authentic but forged and mischief was played with the Court. Further, raising concerns about the counsel for the accused about his awareness and possible involvement, as he signed the affidavit as “identified by me”, complaint was lodged against accused No.1 as well as his counsel arraigning him as accused No.2, resulting in registration of Crime No.97/2024 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru City, which FIR is under challenge in these two petitions.

5. The de-facto complainant/party-in-person has filed statement of objections in both the petitions reiterating the complaint averments. It is stated that the signature on the vakalatnama is genuine, while the signature on the affidavit accompanying the application filed for stay, is forged. The signatures on these documents are starkly different, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the affidavit and the difference in the signatures is evident when compared side by side, establishing a prima facie case of forgery.

6. It is the contention of the de-facto complainant that the forged affidavit was used to mislead this Court to obtain an interim order of stay in Crl.P. No.5584/2024 and had the forged affidavit was not presente