Sarvamangala vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Petitioner and counsel remained absent before the court.

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the FIR No. 64/10 of the Central Police Station, Bangalore, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently registered in C.C. No. 29830/10.

The records disclose that one S. Mani S/o Late Shivamurthy lodged a complaint stating that complainant and the accused were running a partnership business in the name of Sign Tech and they are dealing the business of sign boards. In this context they had opened a S.B. account in No. 9142 in Sri Subrahmanya Cooperative Bank in the name of a joint account and they were dealing with the business. Thereafter the complainant left the said business and the partnership business came to an end. The accused No. 1, the petitioner herein has in fact forged the signatures of the complainant S. Mani and drawn the amount and thereby cheated the complainant. On these allegations the FIR was registered and the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet.

Though this petition was filed in the year 2010 the stay earlier granted was expired on 06.09.2010 itself. From that day what happened before the trial court is not known. The charge sheet paper also discloses that there are many number of witnesses in this case. The entire charge sheet papers are not produced before this court in order to ascertain what the witnesses have stated before the police and what documents collected by the police in order to lay the charge sheet against the accused persons. Even otherwise this court cannot appreciate the materials on record. On a plain reading of the complaint averments if it constitute any offence under any penal provision under any law for the time being in force, then the court normally should not interfere with the proceedings before the trial court. After long lapse of four years the proceedings before the trial court must have been proceeded with and it is not known the exact stage of the said proceedings. If the charges have already been framed by the trial court, the trial has to be conducted and ultimately the court had to dispose of the case on merits. Suppose in case if the charges have not been framed, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court by making necessary application for discharge if he has sufficient grounds. Therefore, in my opinion at this stage the court cannot interfere with the proceedings before the trial court. In this regard it is worth to note a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph 27.13 has categorically held that -

"Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."

Therefore on looking to the charge sheet papers if the allegations are broadly sufficient to constitute an offence this court should leave it to the domain of the trial court either to consider the material on record before framing any charges against the accused or if the charges have already been framed proceed with the trial. Therefore, I do not find any strain reasons to interfere with the proceedings. Hence the following order.

ORDER

The petition stands dismissed. However the petitioner is at liberty to make if advised, necessary application for his discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. if the charges have not been framed. If charges have already been framed, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible.