Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1091 (KAR)

Ashok Salunke v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-04

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge sheet dated 15.02.2012 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Haveri in Hoveri Town Police Station Crime. No.182/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 read with 34 of IPC (CC No.101/2012) against the petitioner-accused No.3. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 3. Complainant remained absent though served with notice. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that one Gopal Mahabaleshwar Hegade came to the bank in the month of August-2010 to enquire about the loan. Again, he came on 06.09.2010 along with some documents and demand draft and accordingly loan was sanctioned and released in his favour. He issued a demand draft for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- in favour of the dealer of the vehicle Automotive Marketing Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that the banker noticed that the said Gopal Mahabaleshwar Hegde has not obtained the invoice and they have not received any demand draft and delivered the vehicle. When a call has been made, it reveled that he had opened a fake account in Syndicated Bank Mundagod and demand draft issued by the complainant bank was got credited to his account with the said bank and the amount has been withdrawn in this behalf. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 3. 5. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that the petitioner-accused No.3 is the permanent resident of Kolagi village, he is a BSc. graduate in 1974 and thereafter he has obtained the post of Scientific Assistant in Dandeli Paper Mill during 1975 and thereafter, he retired in the year 2010. There is no relationship whatsoever between accused Nos.1 and 2 and neither he is a partner nor he is connected to the Automotive Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The said document only contains his name and even he is not resident of the given address and it does not bear his signature. The said document has been fabricated only for the purpose of cheating the bank. He further submitted that except "Adhikrutha Jnapana Patra", no other documents are there attributing against the present petitioner. The said document has been fabricated only for the purpose of cheating the bank. He further submitted that except "Adhikrutha Jnapana Patra", no other documents are there attributing against the present petitioner. Even accused Nos.1 and 2 are strangers and he is not connected with them, a false case has been registered. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition and to quash the charge sheet filed as against him. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the document named under the style of "Adhikrtha Jnapana Patra" contains the name of the accused No.3 and the address shown is also was last where he resided, even it bears his signature and all the accused persons conspired and took the said demand draft by creating a fake account and they got enchased the demand draft and withdrawn the amount. This is of the matter, which has to be considered and appreciated only after leading of evidence. There is a prima facie evidence as against the accused-petitioner. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court, taking the cognizance. On these grounds she prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone though the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Before going to consider the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I feel, it was just and proper to bring it on record that this Court can take the documents produced, if they are having bearing on the matter, even at the initial stage provided that the said documents are beyond suspicion or doubt and are acceptable on the face of it. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANITA MALHOTRA V/S APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNSIL, (2012) AIR SC 31, at para number 13, it has been observed as under: 13. In Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 351 ( AIR 2011 SC 1090 : 2011 AIR SCW 1199), while considering the very same provisions coupled with the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') for quashing of the criminal proceedings, this Court held: "25. In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents - which are beyond suspicion or doubt - placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage." As rightly stated so, though it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or conduct a roving enquiry in respect of merit of the accusation, but if on the face of the document which is beyond suspicion or doubt placed by the accused and if it is considered the accusation against her cannot stand, in such a matter, in order to prevent injustice or abuse of process, it is incumbent on the High Court to look into those document/documents which have a bearing on the matter even at the initial stage and grant relief to the person concerned by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 9. 9. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision, on perusal of the submissions and the records, though several contentions have been raised contending that the petitioner-accused No.3 has nowhere concerned and he is a stranger to accused Nos.1 and 2 and whether the said document is concocted and created one and whether it contains his signature are the grounds which are to be considered at the time of trial, no prima facie acceptance of the said document has been made out as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that neither it is a public document nor an admitted document in this behalf. 10. It is further contention of the petitioner accused No.3 that other accused persons by opening a fake account in Syndicated Bank Mundagod and demand draft issued by the complainant bank was got credited to his account with the said bank and the amount has been withdrawn is also a matter which requires consideration. 11. Under such circumstances, I feel that the petitioner-accused No.3 has not made out any grounds so as to quash the proceedings and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. As could be seen from the records that this case is pending since, 2010. Under such circumstance, the Court below is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously with an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order.