B. MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - accused No.1 in Criminal Petition Nos.7789 of 2015, the petitioner - accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.8938 of 2018 and the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6 in Criminal Petition No.6007 of 2015 are seeking to set aside the order dtd. 7/8/2015 taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Ss. 403, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and to quash the entire criminal proceedings in CC No.761 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short 'the Trial Court'). They have also filed Criminal Petition Nos.7790 of 2015, 8939 of 2018 and 2440 of 2020 respectively seeking similar relief in CC No.762 of 2015 before the Trial Court.

(2.) Crime No.143 of 2015 of Anekal Police Station was registered on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Dr.Madhukar G Angur, whereas Crime No.144 of 2015 of Anekal Police Station was registered on the basis of the first information lodged by his wife B S Priyanka. In both the complaints, the informants have made similar allegations with respect to very same documents for having conspired together, forged the signatures of the complainants, concocted the documents in relation to shares, committed cheating by using the forged documents as genuine and committed misappropriation.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 - the informant in CC No.761 of 2015 and the informant in CC No.762 of 2015 being the husband and wife have filed the first information with Anekal Police Station and the FIR in Crime Nos.143 and 144 of 2015 are registered alleging commission of offences as stated above against all the accused. It is alleged in the complaint that on 19/5/2015, the complainants received a registered post from accused No.1 containing the details that 90% of share capital of the Company belonging to the complainants were transferred in the name of accused No.1. To evidence the same, the Xerox copies of the share certificates and fake security transfer letter were also enclosed. The informants found that the signatures on the said documents were forged. It is stated that the informants have lost their share certificates and it was suspected that the accused have stolen it, misused the said share certificates and concocted fake documents by forging the signatures of the informants. Therefore, they requested the police to register the case and to take legal action against accused No.1.