B.M. SHIVANANDA SWAMY, SRI. C.R. NINGAPPA AND SRI. L.S. PRASANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND SRI. MOURIS PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioners arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 774/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kadur have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 468, 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Certain undisputed facts are: Respondent No. 2 herein took lease of a saw mill situated at Annigere Village, Kadur Taluk vide agreement dated 06.06.1998 from petitioner No. 1. The period of lease agreed upon was four years and was to expire on 31.3.2002. At the time of lease, petitioner No. 1 had received advance amount of Rs. 50,000/ - in cash from respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the agreement, upon the expiry of the period of lease, respondent No. 2 handed over the possession of the saw mill to petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a suit in O.S. No. 21/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kadur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,02,392/ -, which included the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/ - inter alia alleging that upon surrender of the lease premise, petitioner No. 1 has failed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/ -. Petitioner No. 1 contested the suit inter alia contending that he had repaid the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/ - to respondent No. 2 for which respondent No. 2 has executed a document. During the trial in the civil suit, the said document was produced and marked as Ex. D1. At the instance of respondent No. 2, the said document marked as Ex. D1 was referred to hand writing expert for comparison and report. On examination of the disputed signature found at Ex. D1 with the admitted signature of respondent No. 2, the hand writing expert furnished his opinion that the questioned signature marked as Ex. D1(a) is the product of imitation forgery produced in order to match the pictorial form of admitted signature. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 in the light of the said opinion furnished by the handwriting expert, presented a private complaint in PCR No. 24/09 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kadur, against these petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to the attesters to the disputed document -Ex. D1 marked in the original suit. On presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation. The police after investigation filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners, based on which, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged and ordered issue of summons to the petitioners. On receipt of summons petitioner has presented this petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record. As noticed supra, petitioner No. 1 in order to defend the claim of respondent No. 2 in the original suit produced Ex. D1 contending that it was the document executed by respondent No. 2 for having received amount of Rs. 50,000/ -, which he had paid as advance at the time of the lease of the property. At this stage, there is no serious dispute that petitioners 2 and 3 are the attesters to the said document. The opinion of the handwriting expert prima facie indicates that the said document is the product of forgery. Such document has been sought to be used by petitioner No. 1 to defeat the claim of respondent No. 2 in a judicial proceeding. Therefore, at this stage, the materials on record prima facie makes out a case for the aforesaid offences. In this view of the matter, I find no justifiable grounds to entertain this petition. Hence, petition is dismissed.