IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OP MARCH 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.NO.10171 / 2011 BETWEEN SURESH S/O MALLAPPA SAMPAGAON Age: 39 YEARS 0CC: NIL NOW R/AT POST: HOSUR, TQ. SAVADATI’I, DIST. BELGAUM PETITIONER (By Sri. RAM P. GHORPADE & SRI RAGHAVENDRA A PUROHIT, ADVS.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUDACHI P.S, REP BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD. RESPONDENT (By Sri. ANANDKUMAR K. NAVALGIMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET & FIR VIDE ANNEXURE-E & F SUBMITTED BY KUDACHI POLICE STATION IN (CRIME NO.12/2004) C.C.NO,358/2005. 2 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ThE COURT MADE ThE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard petitioner’s counsel and also learned Government Pleader for the State who took notice for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner who is A-2 in the case pending on the file of the JMFC, Raibag in C.C.No.358/05 seeks quashing of the charge sheet and FIR and the offences alleged in the complaint against the two accused are under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. 3. The complaint against the accused persons including this petitioner who is A-2 in short is that, A-i being the Government official gave false information to the Government to help A-2 i.e. the present petitioner ofthenr thated the Gate iëñtirCàimidh t as, A-i while working as Chief Officer of Kudachi during 2000 — 2003, certified that A-2 is the 1st grade Revenue Inspector and by using Kudachi Pattan Panchayat seal and forging the signatures and creating false documents, salary was collected during August 2000 and September 2000 and again from October 2000 to July 2001 and thus A-i helped A-2 in cheating the Government of the salary for the said period which is more than Rs.27,417/-. It is this complaint that gave rise to the case being registered against the petitioner and A-i leading to filing of the charge sheet. 4. Having heard the petitioners counsel and also learned Government Pleader and upon perusal of the FIR and charge sheet material, I am of the view that, this court, at this stage, cannot interfere u/s 482 of Cr.P.C more so when the complaint allegations are further strengthened by filing of the charge sheet after investigation. Taking note of the nature of the 4 complaint allegations, in my view, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to take all the contentions before the Trial Court and seek for discharge and he can also raise the ground of no sanction being obtained to prosecute the accused persons. 6. At this stage, submission made by the petitioners counsel is that, application for discharge was also rejected by the Trial Court and this also goes to confirm that the Trial Court was satisfied with the existence of prima facie material against the accused persons. For the above reasons, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE Dvr: