Dismissed

Mrs Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2021CRL.RP/692/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revision petition challenging order rejecting discharge application in forgery case regarding passport application. Court upheld Trial Court decision to proceed to trial despite lack of conclusive forensic evidence on scanned signatures.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order dated 15.03.2018 of VI ACMM rejecting discharge application remained in force.

Mrs Mariam Fasihuddin Vs State by Adugodi Police… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.692 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS MARIAM FASIHUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF MOHAMMED FAISUDDIN,

¶8

MR MOHAMMED FASIHUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SON OF LATE A.M.FAZLUDDIN,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.14, 34TH CROSS, TMCS LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078. ...PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI MUNIYAPPA AND SRI SUHAS GOWDA H, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY ADUGODI, POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

MR SHAIK FAHID AHMED, SON OF SHAIK ALTAF AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, #19-B, MILLER APARTMENTS, MILLER ROAD,

¶14

¶15

BENSON TOWN,

¶16

BENGALURU-560046. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI M.T.NANAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED BY THE VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.23545/2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This revision petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 15.03.2018 passed in C.C. No.23545/2011 by the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, rejecting the discharge application.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition submitted that the police

¶25

¶26

have filed additional chargesheet for the offence punishable 468, 471, 420, 120(b), 201 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12(b) of Passport Act.

¶27

The main allegations of the complainant are that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have forged the signature of the complainant in the application submitted to the Passport authority for getting the Passport in the name of the son of complainant and accused No.1 (minor son born out of the wedlock of complainant and accused No.1). Since the Passport authority has not preserved the original application, scanned copy was furnished by the Passport authority to the Investigating Officer. When the said scanned copy of the application submitted to the Passport authority was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, it has opined that no definite opinion can be given on the basis of a scanned copy. Under these circumstances, there is no prima facie evidence to show that the signature on the application submitted by the accused was a forged one, as such, there is no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused. The complaint has been filed against these accused with a vindictive motive because of the

¶28

¶29

strained marital differences. The trial Court without considering the relevant aspects has committed error in rejecting the discharge application.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – complainant submitted that in Crl.P. No.5528/2015 filed by the revision petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2, challenging the order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, this Court has observed that even when the scanned copy furnished by Passport authority is available with the Investigating Officer, the same can be sent to the Forensic Laboratory for its opinion along with the signatures obtained from the complainant. With this observation, the criminal petition filed by the accused was dismissed. On the basis of the order passed in criminal petition, the additional chargesheet was filed. Before filing the additional chargesheet, the Investigating Officer has taken model signatures of the complainant and they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with scanned copy of the application furnished by Passport authority for comparison.

¶31

¶32

The FSL report disclose that the questioned photocopied signatures are showing bad line quality along with distorted nature. Hence, opinion on questioned photocopied signatures could not be expressed.

¶33

As could be seen from the records, the police had initially filed chargesheet for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 IPC. Thereafter, as per the order of the Magistrate, which was confirmed by the High Court, the police have filed additional chargesheet. There are specific allegations against the accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have forged the signature of respondent No.2 – complainant for getting the Passport in the name of minor son. It is the specific contention of the complainant that as on the date of submission of the application to the Passport authority, he was in England and he has neither put his signature on the application nor has not sent the application duly signed by him from England. At present, only on the basis of Forensic Science Laboratory report, no definite conclusion can be drawn without there being any evidence to be adduced by either the complainant and other witnesses. Under these circumstances, the

¶34

¶35

trial Court has observed that whether the complaint was filed with a malafide intention and he had signed the application which was submitted to the passport authority or not, are all matters to be considered at the time of trial. Thus, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be faulted with. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. The petitioners have not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the petition is devoid of merits and the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Mrs Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yelahanka Merchants Vs Ramesh H C

Sri Vishwanath S. Vs M/S Sri Rajarajeshwari (Merchant)

Mr Kamal Kishore Vs Nitesh Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd.

V K Venkatesh Vs H P Hanumantha Shetty

Sri. M T Kishan Vs Sri. Krishna D Proprietor

Sri D Parameshwarappa S/O Dyamappa Vs State of Karnataka by Mayakonda Police Station