Allowed

Dr.Nagalakshmamma C S v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023CRL.P/9504/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheet filed against a doctor accused of facilitating fraudulent Aadhaar enrolment. The court held the accused had no statutory duty to verify document genuineness and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20612/2017 insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused.

Dr.Nagalakshmamma C S Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 9504 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9504 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. NAGALAKSHMAMMA C S W/O SRI N.H. VENKATESHWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.579, 3RD CROSS K.G. LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-78.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-01.

¶15

SRI ASHOK LENIN DEPUTY DIRECTOR UIDAI, REGIONAL OFFICE BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHANTHIBHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R-2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE BANASHANKARI POLICE IN CRIME NO.172/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 9504 of 2017

¶21

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 TAKING OF COGNIZANCE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109 OF IPC AND SECTION 34 AND 42 OF AADHAR ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.20612/2017 IS SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109 of IPC and Sections 34 and 42 of AADHAR (Targeted delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

¶25

The charge against the petitioner is that, the accused Nos.2 to 4 have allegedly obtained Aadhar numbers in a fraudulent manner at Durgakrupa Enterprises, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore, and it was further alleged that fabricated proofs of identities and proofs of addresses were allegedly attested and issued by the petitioner accused No.1 who is working as Senior Specialist in Jayanagar General Hospital, which were subsequently used to facilitate the enrolment process.

¶26

It was further alleged that, the attested proofs of identities and proofs of addresses have been issued in a manner calculated to ensure the prescribed process of enrolment for Aadhar and also facilitate forgery, fabrication and

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 9504 of 2017

¶29

impersonation. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition by accused No.1.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 submits that, the petitioner-accused No.1 has only attested to proof identity and proof of address of accused Nos.2 to 4 on the letter which is one of the acceptable supporting documents for verification as specified in Schedule II of the Aadhar (Enrolment and Update) Regulation, 2016. Even accepting the allegations made on the face of it, does not constitute an offence alleged against the petitioner under the provisions of IPC or the Aadhar Act 2016.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner accused has attested the proof of identity and proof of address of accused Nos.2 to 4 without ascertaining the genuineness of identities and address proofs which constitutes an offence under the provisions of IPC and under the provisions of Aadhar Act 2016.

¶32

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

¶33

Aadhar Act, 2016 defines the term "resident" which means an individual who has resided in India for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of application for enrolment, and the term "resident" is similarly

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 9504 of 2017

¶36

defined under the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update Regulations, 2016) as specified under regulations 2(q) of the Regulations.

¶37

Schedule II of the Regulations, 2016 provides for the list of acceptable supporting documents for verification, and one of the document for proof of identity is the Certificate of Identity having photo attested by the Gazetted Officer or Tahasildar on letter head.

¶38

On a plain reading of the definition of the term "resident", means only a citizen of India.

¶39

The petitioner-accused has attested documents furnished by accused Nos.2 to 4 in proof of their addresses and identities on a letter head.

¶40

The petitioner accused was not obligated to find out the genuineness of the said documents, and it was for the verifier as defined under 2 (t) of the Regulations 2016, and it is the responsibility of the verifier as specified under the Regulations 10(5) of the Regulations 2016 to verify the genuineness of the documents.

¶41

In the absence of any provisions in the Act, 2016 or Regulations, 2016, that the petitioner was required to ascertain the genuineness of the documents produced by accused Nos.2 to 4, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner-accused is without any substance.

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 9504 of 2017

¶44

In view of the above, I am of the considered view, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak. Hence, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶47

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20612/2017 on the file of the 3rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore now made over to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Dr.Nagalakshmamma C S v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Nagalakshmamma C S v. State of Karnataka by

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

Swamy K L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri U Veerendra Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Harisha Vs Savitha

Pragbhaldas K v Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Selvi Ceceliya a Vs Smt. Poornima

Ms. Ambujakshi Vs State of Karnataka