IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.897/2019 BETWEEN :
Sri Amemar Abdul Razak S/o Abdul Khader Aged about 51 years R/at Kodange House Jodumarga Post Bantwal Taluk-574 219 Dist: Dhakshina Kannada (By Sri Ramachandra R. Naik, Advocate) AND :
… Petitioner The State of Karnataka by Bantwal Police, Bantwal, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to allow the above petition and discharge the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.712/2016 (Crime No.29/2014) for the offence punishable Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 474 R/w Section 34 of IPC on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present revision petition is filed by accused No.1 challenging the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada on the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge accused No.1.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-State Bank of Mysore filed a private complaint alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the complainant-Bank on 7.12.2005 to get loan of Rs.3,77,000/- for the purpose of purchase of used TOYOTA QUALIS vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-18-N-3125 and they also furnished necessary documents in favour of the bank. Thereafter, it came to the notice of the bank that the said documents produced by accused Nos.1 and 2 are forged and fake documents. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, the Court directed the police to investigate the matter and submit a report. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet as against accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and accused No.1, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the said application came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, accused No.1 is before this Court.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that a false case has been filed as against accused No.1. His name is Amemar Abdul Razak, but the name of accused No.1 has been shown as Abdul Razak. It is his further contention that the petitioner has not gone to the bank and he has not availed any loan. But he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is his further submission that the charge sheet material, copies of Driving License and Pan Card have been produced before the Court, but the petitioner is not able to drive the two wheeler or four wheeler. It is his further submission that the copies which have been produced are all xerox copies and they are not admissible in evidence. He further submitted that to the address of the petitioner which has been produced before the Court, no summons have been served and after issuance of NBW only, he came to know about the pendency of the case. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and to discharge the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case has come to the conclusion that it is accused Nos.1 and 2 who impersonated and fabricated the documents and offered them in bank for availing loan and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against them. It is his further submission that if the entire charge sheet material is looked into, prima facie, there is material to show that accused persons have fabricated the documents and by impersonation, they have availed the loan from the bank. It is a matter of evidence which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. At this juncture, there are no good grounds to discharge accused No.1 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions. As could be seen from the records, including the charge sheet material, only xerox copies have been produced and no original documents have been produced. At the time of admissibility, the original documents are intended to be produced in the evidence which are going to be marked. At this premature stage only on the basis of xerox copies, it cannot be inferred that a false case has been registered as against accused No.1. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of petitioner herein is Amemar Abdul Razak and in the charge sheet it is mentioned as Abdul Razak, that is also a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only when the evidence is going to be led.
7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner does not know driving of the vehicles and the driving license which has been produced is a fake one. The petitioner has not visited the bank and he has not availed any loan. All these matters require consideration of the trial Court and it has to be substantiated when the material witnesses are going to be examined before the trial Court. It is well established proposition of law that whenever an application has been filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to consider the fact that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet material, no other material has to be looked into for the purpose of allowing the application or discharge the accused, Prima facie the matter requires evidence and at this juncture, it cannot be held that accused No.1-petitioner has made out a case for his discharge from the charges levelled against him. In that light, I am of the considered opinion that there are no good grounds so as to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner- accused No.1 to raise all the contentions raised in this petition at the time of trial before the trial Court.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-