Insufficient evidence for impersonation and fraud led to quashing criminal proceedings under IPC.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.15/2010 of Hunsur Town Police Station in CC.No.517/2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 465 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ') are seeking to set aside the order dated 03.07.2018 taking cognizance of the offence, registration of the criminal case and consequently are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Heard Sri. B. Lathif, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

4. Respondent No.2 filed the first information on 22.01.2010 with Hunsur Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC . The FIR came to be registered in Crime No.15/2010.

5. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that, he is Domanik S/o Sebastian resident of Kerala, he was granted immovable property in Sy.No.40 of Borekoppanakaval by the Tahsildar and since then, he was in possession and ownership of the property. He sold the property in favour of one Smt. Kempamma, under the sale deed dated 18.01.2010, for a valid consideration. It is his further contention that petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is Domanik S/o Sebastian. He is also from Kerala and taking advantage of the similarity in the names, accused No.1 sold four acres of land in Sy.No.40 of Borekoppanakaval Hanagodu Hobli, in favour of one Smt. Balanagamma, under the registered sale deed dated 05.01.2010. Thus accused Nos.1 and 2 have forged, concocted the documents and committed cheating. There is impersonation by accused No.1, projecting himself as Domanik S/o Sebastian.

6. During investigation the police found that respondent No.2 was Sri. Raju S/o Nambichari, resident of Kerala. Subsequently, he came to Karnataka and projected himself as Domanik S/o Sebastian and concocted certain documents. It is stated that the election identity card, ration card etc., disclose that respondent No.2 was Raju S/o Nambichari and there are no materials to substantiate that he was Domanik S/o Sebastian as claimed. Hence, 'B' report came to be filed, which also states that the election identiy card pertaining to Raju S/o Nambichari contains the photo of respondent No.2 and therefore, it is clear that he was not Domanik S/o Sebastian. There are no documents to support the contention of respondent No.2 and therefore, they filed the 'B' report.

7. Respondent No.2 filed the protest memo before the Trial Court requesting for rejection of the 'B' report, stating that he is ready and willing to produce additional documents, as the Police have filed the false report. It is also stated that the Investigating Officer has not taken the trouble of verifying the documents that are produced by accused No.1 and therefore, the 'B' report is liable to be rejected. The

8. Trial Court after taking into consideration the protest memo, in the light of the 'B' repor