IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5345/2017 BETWEEN:
1. H. SHANKAR S/O. HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT GUNDIKERI HOUSE SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577 427.
2. K.N.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS VINAYAKA NAGARA SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577 427. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YADAVA K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR TOWN POLICE STATION SHIKARIPURA SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577 427.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY SHIKARIPURA SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577 427. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1479/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC, SHIKARIPURA INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED LEVELING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS U/S. 381, 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W. 34 OF IPC INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought for quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.No.1479/2015 on the file of JMFC, Shikaripura which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 403, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of IPC insofar as petitioners are concerned (Accused Nos.2 and 3).
2. On 04.12.2013, an FIR in Crime No.191/2013 came to be registered alleging that in respect of a tender called for Shikaripura Town Municipality for supply of workers by outsourcing to the Water Supply Division of Shikaripura Town Municipality, one Sri. B.C. Rajanna had submitted his tender and he was the successful bidder and had submitted a Demand Draft bearing No.62475 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs.45,000/- which came to be misplaced in the office of Town Municipality and as such, bidder had furnished one more demand draft and on enquiry with the Corporation Bank, who had issued the demand draft had been informed that earlier demand draft had also been encashed. Hence, Shikaripura Town Municipality lodged a complaint and requested to take action against unknown persons. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.191/2013 and during investigation, it came to be noticed by the investigating officer that petitioners herein who are working as contract employees of Town Municipality, had forged the signatures and had encashed said demand draft. Hence, charge sheet came to be filed against them.
3. It is urged by petitioner that prosecution has not examined any officials of the Bank or had recorded the statement of Corporation Bank officials as to how demand draft issued in the name of Chief Officer, Town Municipality Shikaripura had been encashed by accused persons when demand draft stood in the name of Chief Officer, Town Municipality Shikaripura. Contending that there is no such material to suspect the role of the petitioners and they had been falsely implicated in the case, hence, they have sought for quashing of the proceedings.
4. At the stage of considering the prayer for quashing of the proceedings, probable defence of the accused would not be a ground on which the proceedings can be quashed. If ingredients of the offences are made out from the charge sheet material and such material is sufficient to proceed with the trial it would suffice. Even after trial i.e. ultimately, accused may be acquitted, would be no justification for this Court to quash the proceedings. The defence that may be available or factual aspects which establishes during the trial, may lead to acquittal are also not the grounds for quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. The correctness or otherwise of the charge sheet material has to be decided only during trial.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court in the instance case opines that charge sheet material is sufficient enough to proceed against the petitioners. No grounds. Petition is rejected.
IA.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2018 is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE KA/-