Shri. Dinakar Pandurang Magadum vs The State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—The petitioner has invoked Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'' for short) to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 1023/2012 on the file of the learned JMFC IV Court, Belgaum, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.'' for short). From the records made available, it is seen that the first accused Nival Dattatray Patil sought recruitment in the Army by producing his school certificates. He was recruited and enrolled in the Army on 14.08.2009. Later, the army authorities received information from Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. Kolhapur, that the marks cards and certificates produced by the said person were fabricated changing the date of birth.

Initially a case was registered in Crime No. 74/2010 against Patil Nivas Dattatraya. During investigation, they found complicity of the petitioner. According to the material compiled in the form of charge sheet, petitioner has taken money from the first accused and connived with him to fabricate false birth certificate and certificates relating to academic qualification. Thus, the petitioner has also been arraigned as the second accused.

The petitioner''s Counsel submits, the allegation is only against the first accused and no allegation is made against the petitioner of having indulged in any act, which comes within the mischief of Sections 420, 465, 470, 471 or 468 of the IPC. He thus seeks quashing of the proceedings. Sri. V.M. Banakar, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor opposed it.

As could be seen, presently the case is pending at the stage of framing of charges. There is no illegality either in registration of the case or the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. The investigation has culminated in filing of the charge sheet and now cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and co-accused invite punishment of severity, Therefore, a warrant trial has to be conducted. Before conducting the trial, the Magistrate may have resort to follow the required procedure envisaged u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. to examine the material on record and decide whether the material in the form of charge sheet makes out a case for framing of charge or not. At that stage, the petitioner will certainly have right to seek discharge. Being of this view and also as there is no illegality in the proceedings before the Magistrate, I find no reason to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Petition is rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial Court at an appropriate stage.