IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TFI DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P. NO.10333/2011 BETWEEN: VIRUPAKSHA (2 BALASAHEB SAUNDALGEKAR, S/O APPAIAH SAUNDALGEKAR, AGED 68 YEARS, SATAWAI ROAD, NIPPANI TOWN, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI.C.V.SHEELAVANT, ADV,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD FOR SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIPPANI TOWN POLICE STATION, NIPPANI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VINAYAK KULKARNI, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.04/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC COURT, NIPPANI, AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard petitioner’s counsel Sri.C,V.Sheelavant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State who took notice for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against him, which is pending in C.C.No.04/201 1 on the file of the JMFC Court, Nippani in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. The facts in brief are that, the complaint lodged by the Municipal Commissioner, Nippani to the Police stating that, accused No.1, Prakash Ghatti-C.W.7 & Ramesh Ohatti, C.W.8 submitted letter of approval and approved blue print plan and the said documents contain forged signature of the Municipal Commissioner and Asst. Executive Engineer and forged seal. Therefore, the complaint was lodged and the case was registered against the accused persons. 4. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that, petitioneraccused No.2 not submitted documents for approval in respect of the construction to be taken up. Therefore, the trial Court was in error taking cognizance against petitioner also. 5. On the other hand, submission of learned High Court Government Pleader for the State is that, as per the material collected by the prosecution, the seal which was found and the documents produced were prepared by the accused No.2. Under these circumstances, when the seal of the department being prepared by accused No.2, which was not genuine seal, this Court cannot interfere in the matter. 6. Having thus heard both sides and the nature of the allegations made and as per the prosecution version, this petitioner said to have prepared the seal, which was not genuine seal of the department and with the help of said seal, accused No. 1 submitted letter of approval and the signature of the Municipal Commissioner and other officers and also correction of their name was wrongly written with 4 forged seal. The accused No.1 is said to be the peon working at Municipal Council Office and the forged seal is also being recovered from the house of the accused No.1. Taking all these factors into account, in my view, this Court cannot interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., more so, charge sheet has been submitted against the accused persons. 7. For the above reasons, petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions now urged, before the trial Court and seek for discharge and also to take up the contention of delay in registering the case. Sd/ JUDGE MBS/