T. VASUDEVA PAI, SRI S.G. GOWDA, SRI SUDHAKAR PAI AND SRI PRAKASH SHETTY Vs. STATE AND SRI. P.N. BALKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought for quashing the FIR registered by Mahalakshmi Layout Police in Crime No. 311/09 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the information lodged by the respondent No. 2 herein inter alia on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR even if accepted at its face value would not make out any of the offences alleged and that since the entire case alleged in the complaint has occurred in Mangalore, Mahalakshmi Layout police have no territorial jurisdiction and that the very person whose digital signature is alleged to have been forged has sent a written report to the Investigating Officer that his digital signature has not been forged by anyone and therefore, no case is made out for any of the offences, as such FIR registered by the respondent -police is liable to be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 -informant before the police and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 2.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners during the course of the arguments drew attention of the Court to a copy of the letter dated 10.09.2009 stated to have been written by one K.S. Karanth to the Station House officer of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station to the effect that his digital signature has not been forged by anyone and according to the learned counsel this letter was acknowledged by the Station House Officer on 12.9.09. It is on the basis of this letter, petitioners have contended that no case has been made out against these petitioners for any of the offence alleged. Reading of the contents of the FIR lodged before the police prima facie makes out the offences alleged against the petitioners. The letter now sought to be relied upon by the petitioners is in the nature of defence plea. If such letter has been received by the I.O., it is for him to take a decision, to either act on the said letter or to reject the same, if he has any other evidence before him to come to a conclusion that the offences alleged have been made out. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot quash the FIR when the allegations made in the complaint prima facie makes out the offences alleged. The arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction, also cannot be at this stage a ground to quash the FIR. It is for the Investigating Officer to find out as to whether he has territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter and if he is of the opinion that he has no territorial jurisdiction, he is bound to transfer the case to the jurisdictional police for investigation. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in any of the contentions urged in this petition. Accordingly, petition is rejected.