RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent.

(2.) SRI . Hashmath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, none of the ingredients quoted by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet are attracted in the present circumstances of the case. As such, it is a complaint by the Special Tahsildar, when the matter was placed on his table for effecting khatha in favour of the purchaser that too after four years of the sale transaction. Accused No. 2, who is the mediator working in the premises of Sub -Registrar's office, is responsible for fabricating the document and he handed over the document to the petitioner as a genuine sketch. Believing him, the petitioner presented the sketch before the Sub -Registrar. So far there is no dispute between him and the purchaser or between him and the original owners. The alleged offence does not amount to cheating as contemplated under Section 415 of IPC. He has not intentionally induced any person to deliver any property. Hence, no case under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Likewise, no material is collected by the Investigating Officer that it was he, who has forged the document and when no case is made out under Section 468 of IPC, there cannot be any case under Section 471 of IPC for using a forged document with fraudulent/dishonest intention. Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

(3.) IN the light of the above rival submissions, I have gone through the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. CW -1/complainant in his complaint has stated that, this petitioner has somehow got the document prepared by himself or through somebody and CW -2/the Supervisor in the office of CW -1 corroborates the complaint allegations.