Allowed

Sri. Daultrao S/O Narasimharao Ghorpade v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2023CRL.P/100836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against the petitioner in a forgery case where the FSL report declared thumb impressions smudged and unfit for comparison. The court held that the primary evidence was bleak and continuation would waste judicial time under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 1151/2018 are quashed.

Sri. Daultrao S/O Narasimharao Ghorpade Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8729 CRL.P No. 100836 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100836 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. DAULTRAO S/O NARASIMHARAO GHORPADE, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADABHAVI, TAL. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-416104.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH P.S.I ATHANI POLICE STATION, REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S.P.P OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. DUNDUBAI W/O TUKARAM SARAGAR, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. VISNUWADI VILLAGE, TAL. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-416104.

¶16

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN ATHANI P S CRIME NO.105/2017 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES U/SEC. 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC ATHANI CC NO.1151/2018, IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8729 CRL.P No. 100836 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.1151/2018.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Santosh B.

¶24

Malagoudar appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶25

A complaint comes to be registered by the 2^nd respondent-complainant alleging that land in Sy.No.570/3 measuring 4 acres 18 gunta situate at Madhabhavi Village, Athani taluk, which is in possession of the complainant, is sold to one Satappa Shivappa Kanale by creating false documents and the allegation of creation of false documents is laid against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.105/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 420, 120A, 468, 472, 467, 464, 425 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short). The police after investigation have filed a charge-sheet in the matter. The filing of the charge-sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8729 CRL.P No. 100836 of 2022

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that all the offences so alleged against the petitioner would begin with forging of the documents. It is his submission that the FSL report that is sought for by the Investigating Officer clearly indicates that the signature is inconclusive and therefore the said inconclusivity would lead to obliteration of the crime against the petitioner.

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that, even, if, the signatures are inconclusive, it would not absolve the petitioner but will have to be tested in the trial. He would submit that the petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to undergo trial where he has to come out clean.

¶29

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶30

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have perused the material on record.

¶31

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The allegation is that the petitioner has forged certain documents and has sold the

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8729 CRL.P No. 100836 of 2022

¶33

property belonging to the complainant to another person. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar and the petitioner, both, are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The subject petition concerns accused No.1-the petitioner. The chargesheet material that is appended to the petition would indicate that the signatures of the complainant were sent to the FSL for its examination and the impression were as Q1-Q12. The opinion of the FSL is as follows:

¶34

“NATURE OF EXAMINATION

¶35

The above said documents containing thumb impressions are carefully and thoroughly examined at Truth Labs with the help of conventional scientific aids like handheld lenses and linen tester.

¶36

I have examined and compared the finger impressions concerned in this case and my opinion is as follows”

¶37

OPINION

¶38

The disputed finger impressions marked as Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 AND Q6 said to be of ‘Smt. Dondubai’ w/o Tukaram Saragar and Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11 AND Q12 said to be of ‘Smt. Kerabai’ d/o Babu Hegade Khandekar are unfit for comparison as they are highly smudged, indistinct and do not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge details.

¶39

Hence, the comparison of disputed finger impressions marked as Q1 to Q12 could not be made with the admitted finger impressions and specimen finger impressions.”

¶40

(Emphasis added)

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8729 CRL.P No. 100836 of 2022

¶43

All the signatures are said to be unfit for comparison, as they are highly smudged, indistinct or do not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge details. If this is the foundation of the charge-sheet that is filed against the petitioner by the Investigating Officer to drive home forgery, the said allegation can hardly be driven home in the light of the opinion being contrary to the allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, on this ground alone, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶44

In the aforesaid finding of FSL and the fact that the conviction of the petitioner on account of the said finding in the FSL being very bleak, further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would only be a waste of judicial time and become an abuse of the process of law, as the primary evidence to prove the signature of the petitioner is the FSL report and the opinion in the FSL report on comparison of the thumb impression is that it is highly smudged, indistinct and does not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge details. To prove forgery the primary evidence itself is thus bleak. Therefore, to prevent miscarriage of justice, I deem it

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8729 CRL.P No. 100836 of 2022

¶47

appropriate to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and obliterate the crime against the petitioner.

¶48

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶51

ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.1151/2018 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, is quashed. The quashment of these proceedings will not come in the way of any other proceeding pending or to be instituted by the complainant against the petitioner.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

kmv Ct:Bck

Sri. Daultrao S/O Narasimharao Ghorpade v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Daultrao S/O Narasimharao Ghorpade v. the 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

Babu S/O Shankarappa Mukkannvar Vs the Union of India by Its Secretary

A Yallappa Vs the General Manager

Smt Uma Aravatagi W/O Prabhu Aravatagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs.Bi Bi Rehana W/O Mr.Syed Liaqat Ali Shah Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Jayendrasinh Natubha Chudasama Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankaragouda S/O Linganagouda Vs the State of Karnataka