Criminal Revision Petition seeking to set aside an order where a Magistrate took cognizance against accused teachers for forgery after rejecting police report. The High Court declined interference, upholding the Magistrate's independent finding of a prima facie case.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL. R. P. NO. 100237 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
2
BAIRUMBE, TAL: SIRSI, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADV. FOR R1) (SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397(1) R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO. 156/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 9/08/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUNDAGOD IN C.C.NO. 156/2016(P.C.NO. 9/2011) MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed seeking to set-aside the order dated 09.08.2016 passed in PC No.9/2011(CC No.156/2016) on the file of the Court of JMFC, Mundgod, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected ‘B’ report submitted by the Police Inspector, Mundgod and took cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 463, 468, 469 and 420 read with Section 149 of IPC and issued summons.
4
society and the accused are all working as Teachers in a high school run by the said society and during the month of December, 2009, the Management realized that the accused persons were manipulating the attendance register by forging it in collusion with the in-charge Headmaster by recording their attendance even when they were absent. Further, it is stated that the accused were maintaining two attendance registers, parallel, with many manipulations done to facilitate the staff to gain enrichment of salary benefits by misrepresenting the attendance records.
5
Police was accepted. However, the complainant preferred Crl.R.P. No.39/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Sirsi, wherein the said revision petition came to be allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court.
Magistrate has considered the averments in the sworn statement of the complainant and also the statements of the other witnesses recorded before issuing summons to the accused. It is manifest that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the complainant has made out a case for issuing summons to the accused persons. It is observed
6
that the accused persons have fabricated another parallel attendance register.
Sd/JUDGE
JTR/hnm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against petitioners.
Whether the case made out by the complainant is sufficient for issuing summons.
Whether the dismissal of the criminal revision petition is in order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri.L.G. Guruvayyanavar
Sri.Ramagouda S/o Balagouda Arabhavi
Sri.Puttayya S/o Channabasayya Bellari
Sri.Chandappa S/o Dundappa Wantamuri
Smt.Renuka W/o Vishnu Naik
Sri.Krishna S/o Yallappa Kamble
Mohammad Nawaz
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
