FIR alleging a health officer issued a false birth certificate and a woman used it for birth registration; court held no cheating, forgery or child-buying ingredients were made out and quashed FIR.
Complaint dated 30.01.2023 and FIR in Crime No.09/2023 quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:10065 CRL.P No. 3853 of 2023 C/W WP No. 9179 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3853 OF 2023 C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 9179 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P NO. 3853/2023:
BETWEEN:
AMTUR RAPHE D/O ABDUL SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 9TH CROSS, BHOVI COLONY GANDHINAGAR, TIPTUR TOWN, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANMUKH REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GAJENDRA KUMAR GOWDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.9/2023, NEW EXTENSION P.S., TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.420,468,511 R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M., TUMAKURU DISTRICT AT TUMAKURU.
IN WP NO. 9179/2023:
BETWEEN:
Dr. LAKSHMIKANTHA S.R., S/O RUDRAIAH S.G., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS TALUK HEALTH OFFICER, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GAJENDRA KUMAR GOWDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM R1 - POLICE IN CRIME NO.9/2023 (ANNEXURE-F), QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED.30.01.2023 GIVEN BY R2 (ANNEXURE-E) AND THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY THE R1 IN CRIME NO.9/2023 (ANNEXURE-F) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.1) AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The second respondent lodged the FIR stating that he and his colleague, N.S. Nagendra, had received information that on 16.12.2021, Smt. Amtur Rafe, wife of Shaffiulla from Tiptur, had given birth to a girl child named 'Liba Anam'. Petitioner/Accused No.1, who is working as the Taluka Health Officer, had certified that the child was born to Smt. Amtur Rafe at her residence. Petitioner/Accused No.2, Smt. Amtur Rafe, used this certificate to approach the Tumakuru Municipal Corporation for issuing a birth certificate. The Tumakuru Municipal Corporation registered the application submitted by Accused No.2, noting that the application was not accompanied by the 'Thayi Card'. Upon enquiry, the complainant discovered that Accused No.1 had issued a false certificate by misusing his position. Consequently, the police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 511 read with 34 of the IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:10065 CRL.P No. 3853 of 2023 C/W WP No. 9179 of 2023
30.03.2023, stating that the essential elements to constitute the commission of offences under Sections 420, 468, and 511 read with 34 of the IPC were conspicuously absent. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law.
"It is interesting to note that the complaint was lodged after a passage of three months, and none of the authorities, be it the immediate superiors of the petitioner, the competent authority, the disciplinary authority, or the municipal authority, deemed it necessary to initiate action. Despite this, the complaint was entertained by the police with all earnestness. We are puzzled and unable to comprehend how provisions of Section 420 and 468 have been invoked against the petitioner, who admittedly issued a certificate that can be validly issued by a competent authority. It is not denied that such a certificate can be issued and that the certificate was issued by the petitioner in his official capacity as the Taluka Health Officer. The allegation stems from the fact that the child was not delivered in Tumakuru but in a different place. Assuming this to be true for argument's sake and which appears to be accepted by the petitioner, the said certificate has been recalled. Despite the certificate having been recalled or cancelled, the petitioner is now sought to
be placed under suspension for reasons best known to the respondent. It is not a case where the petitioner has not acknowledged his mistake, but a case where he has acknowledged it and acted promptly to ensure that no wrongful benefit is gained by the beneficiary nor any wrongful act is caused to the State. It is not alleged that the petitioner engaged in any corrupt activity or received any illegal gratification for issuing the certificate."
"The age-old adage is, 'to err is human,' meaning that human frailty is a recognized fact, and it is natural for humans to commit errors. Every error ought not to be actionable unless it is shown to be premeditated, made for extraneous reasons or considerations, or is repetitive. It is not the case that the petitioner attempted to cover up his alleged conduct. Yet, the respondents have deemed it necessary to place him under suspension."
"In our prima facie opinion, the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the parameters enumerated under Rule 10 of the KCS and CCA Rules. The parameters that warrant or justify suspension are well-defined, and the power of suspension cannot be exercised if it is for reasons other than those enumerated therein. In all probability, the action complained of on the part of the petitioner appears to be sheer inadvertence. Be that as it may, this Court is not entering into the merits of the allegations for the present, as the petitioner is before this Court only regarding the refusal of the Tribunal to grant an ex-parte interim order. As stated supra, in our prima facie opinion, we find that no case, as stipulated under Rule 10 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, is made out."
Therefore, he argues that the veracity of these allegations requires investigation. At this stage, the registration of an FIR does not warrant any interference, and he seeks the dismissal of the petitions.
NC: 2024:KHC:10065 CRL.P No. 3853 of 2023 C/W WP No. 9179 of 2023
under Section 468 of the IPC. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law.
Sd/JUDGE
CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT:SNN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 420, 468, 511 r/w 34 IPC could be sustained where a false birth certificate was promptly cancelled?
Whether material showed an offence of selling or buying a child under Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Amtur Raphe
State of Karnataka by New Extension P.S., Tumakuru
Gajendra Kumar Gowda
Dr. Laksrmikantha S.R.
The State by New Extension Police Station, Tumakuru
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
