Allowed

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022CRL.P/100228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against a deed writer accused of framing a sale deed on behalf of others. The court held that mere drafting on instructions does not constitute forgery under Sections 467 and 468 IPC without specific allegations of fabrication or conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

The im[ugned] criminal proceedings in CC No.264/2016 pending against the petitioner-accused No.10 are hereby quashed.

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100228 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100228 OF 2020 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ADAMSAB S/O GHUDUSAB TEKADI @ A.G.TEKADI, AGE: 72 YEARS,OCCUPATION: DEED WRITER, R/O: VITTOBHA DEV GALLI, KHANAPUR,

¶9

TQ: KHANAPUR,DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S S BAWAKHAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KHANAPUR POLICE, TQ: KHANAPUR,DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

MARUTI S/O GOVIND KINAYEKAR

¶15

AGE: 26 YEARS,OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO.125,KARLE VILLAGE,

¶16

TQ: and DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.V.S.KASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶19

SRI.PRASAD PATIL, ADV., FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/04/2016, TAKING COGNIZANCE BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.10) IN CC NO.264/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH CHARGES DATED 25/10/2019, FRAMED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR AS AGAINST THIS PETITIOENR (ACCUSED NO.10) IN CC NO.264/2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND AWARD COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No. 100228 of 2020

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING FOR ORDERS, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet alleging that the accused Nos.1 and 2 by impersonation executed a sale deed in favour of the accused Nos.4 and 5 and the allegation against the petitioner-accused No.10 is that he drafted the sale deed on the instructions of the accused Nos.1 to 5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, petitioner-accused No.10 has filed this petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation of fabricating the documents against the Accused No.10 so as to constitute the commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC. He further submits that the allegation of petitioner-accused No.10 drafting the sale deed on the instructions of the

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 100228 of 2020

¶29

accused Nos.1 to 5 does not constitute the offences alleged against him.

¶30

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondentState and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No2. submit that petitioner having drafted the sale deed on the instructions of the accused Nos.1 to 5 has committed the aforesaid offences and learned Magistrate after having perused the charge sheet has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶31

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

To constitute the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC, a person must have forged a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will or an authority which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner-accused

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 100228 of 2020

¶35

No.10 is that he drafted the sale deed on the instructions of the accused Nos.1 to 5 and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner–accused No.10 that he has forged the document or connived with Accused Nos.1 to 5 in forging the document. In the absence of the essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC, the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner-accused No.10.

¶36

In view of the same, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner–accused No.10 will be an abuse of process of law since the probability of the conviction of Accused No.10 is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶39

ii) Impugned proceedings in CC.No.264/2016

¶40

pending on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 100228 of 2020

¶43

Khanapur as against the petitioner-accused No.10 is

hereby quashed.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi v. State of Karnataka

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

Basavaraj S/O Shankrappa Akkivalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Progressive Education Trust, Vs the State of Karnataka

Yalaguradappa Bhimappa Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar Vs State of Karnataka