Criminal Petition No. 1376 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1673 CRL.P No. 1376 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1376 OF 2018 Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka BETWEEN: MOHAMMED SHAHID N.P. S/O. T.P. SHADULI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. FATHIMA VILLA, VALUVAKKAD, ELAMBACHI POST, KANHANGADH TALUK, KASARGODU DISTRICT - 671 311, KERALA STATE. (BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
THE MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION, MANGALORE CITY, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.445/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER. II)ALTERNATIVELY THE INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN FILING CHARGE SHEET IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND REINVESTIGATE THE SAME. III)THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY THE COURT BELOW IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1673 CRL.P No. 1376 of 2018 THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.154/2012 pending in CC No. 445/2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Sr.Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, CW1-Police Inspector on receiving credible information held raid over the office of the petitioner and found several fake marks cards. On enquiry, it is found that the petitioner is concocting fake degree and diploma marks cards, which were being sold to various persons for consideration ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.95,000/- per marks card. The CCB unit seized all those fake marks cards, registered FIR and have undertaken investigation. After completing investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1673 CRL.P No. 1376 of 2018 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 3. Heard Sri. Siddeswara N.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 5. Petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The materials on record discloses that the Police Inspector of CCB, Mangalore received credible information and on such credible information, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1673 CRL.P No. 1376 of 2018 raid was held in the office of the petitioner. Several fake degree and diploma marks cards were found to be in possession of the petitioner. Same were seized under the mahazar and during investigation, it is found that the petitioner is responsible along with co-accused in concoction of fake marks cards and selling them to different persons for the consideration ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.95,000/-. During investigation, the various Universities referred to in the marks card were enquired and it is found that the marks cards were not genuine documents. Thus, the final report is filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences as referred to above. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant is the Police Inspector and he is not the aggrieved party. The nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the offence alleged is committed against the State and it is of serious nature. The consequences of concoction of such degree and diploma marks card and selling the same to unqualified persons to enable them to make use of the same, to get entry into various fields will be disastrous. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Police Inspector is not the aggrieved party and therefore he could not have filed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1673 CRL.P No. 1376 of 2018 the complaint, cannot be accepted. Now admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is field, which makes out strong prima-facie evidence against the petitioner. 7. Next contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no proper investigation and there is nothing on record to conclude that the marks cards that were seized from the office of the petitioners were fake. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted in view of the charge sheet materials, wherein, it has cited as many as 23 witnesses and letters from various witnesses discloses that the Universities referred to in fake marks cards disowned the fact that they have issued the same. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proper investigation undertaken by the Investigating Officer, cannot be accepted. 8. The third contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence without application of mind. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials that are placed before it, which prima-facie discloses commission of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1673 CRL.P No. 1376 of 2018 offences. It is not a case where there is absolutely no prima- facie materials to constitute any offences. Under such circumstances, none of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings can be accepted to allow the petition. 9. I do not find any merits in the petition filed by the petitioner. Since the allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused are of serious nature, the accused have to face the trial. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of relief in this petition. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20