BALALJI TRADING COMPANY Vs. SAIFULLA KHAN GAFARKHAN SAVUKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in CC No. 32 of 2015 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsi, Uttar Kannada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 417, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 474 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that respondent 1 has filed a private complaint in PC No. 4 of 2015, which subsequently registered as CC No. 32 of 2015, making allegations that the complainant-Saifulla Khan Gafarljam Savlar (for short, 'Saifulla Khan') has sold cotton worth Rs. 32,64,313.00 to accused 1-Firm (petitioner 1 herein). The said transaction has been explained in the complaint with all details. It is stated that the complainant also filed a suit for recovery of a sum Rs 26,64,313.00 in O.S. No. 49 of 2004 wherein the defendants in that suit, i.e., the petitioners herein, have entered their appearance and denied their liability. The defendant/accused also contended that the plaintiff/complainant has issued a letter dated 26-3-2004 stating that the accounts between the plaintiff/complainant and the defendants/accused are settled. The suit went on for trial and thereafter, it was disposed off. It is contended in the complaint that the defendants/accused have produced Exs. D. 1 to D. 10 and asserted that the said documents were executed by the plaintiff/complainant. In fact, the plaintiff/complainant disputed those documents as forged and concocted, and created for the purpose of producing the same before the Court and to use them in evidence. It appears during the course of the trial, the Trial Judge has referred the documents (Exs. D. 1 to D. 10) stating that those documents are forged and concocted. The suit also came to be disposed of.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contends before this Court that the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court as the Civil Court has already given a finding that Exs. D. 1 to D. 10 are forged documents. However, the petitioners have preferred a regular first appeal before the Appellate Court and the Court has granted an order of stay and the same is pending for consideration. If for any reason, the Appellate Court reverses the finding of the Trial Court with reference to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents marked as Exs. D. 1 to D. 10, then the complaint is not maintainable against the petitioners, by the complainant (R1 herein). Secondly, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends before this Court that, when the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that Exs. D. 1 to D. 10 are forged documents, the Court itself should have referred the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate, as such, the private complaint is not maintainable. On these two important grounds, the learned Counsel contends that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.