Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 76 of 2013 registered at Margao Town Police Station for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 3, a co-owner of a plot, alleging that one Manoj Oklekar had forged a power of attorney and attempted to fraudulently dispose of the property. The petitioner's involvement was limited to issuing a public notice on behalf of his client Sandip Naik, who intended to purchase a different plot. The notice did not disclose the client's name. The petitioner argued that he had no role in the alleged forgery or cheating, and that the FIR was an abuse of process. The High Court examined the complaint and found that the allegations of forgery and cheating were directed against Manoj Oklekar and others, not the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner's act of issuing a public notice without naming the client did not constitute any offence. The court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR insofar as it pertained to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - FIR against advocate for issuing public notice without disclosing client's name - No allegation of forgery or cheating against advocate - Held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law (Paras 2-5).
B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery and Cheating - Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 - Prima Facie Case - Allegations of forged power of attorney and fraudulent sale attributed to main accused, not to advocate - Advocate's role limited to issuing public notice - Held that no prima facie case made out against petitioner (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR against the petitioner advocate discloses any prima facie case of offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 76 of 2013 dated 16.2.2013 registered with Margao Town Police Station insofar as it pertains to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Abuse of process of law
- Prima facie case
- Criminal conspiracy
- Forgery
- Cheating
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 102
Criminal Writ Petition No. 107 of 2013
Mr. Nitin Sardessai for Petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar for Respondent nos.1 and 2
State of Goa, The Police Inspector, Margao Town Police Station, Silvestre Niasso
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 76 of 2013 dated 16.2.2013 registered with Margao Town Police Station
Filing Reason
Petitioner, an advocate, was named as accused in FIR for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, alleging his involvement in a fraudulent land transaction through issuance of a public notice
Issues
Whether the FIR discloses any prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences?
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he only issued a public notice on behalf of his client Sandip Naik for a proposed purchase of a plot, and had no role in any alleged forgery or cheating.
Petitioner contended that the complaint allegations were primarily against Manoj Oklekar and others, and the only allegation against him was non-disclosure of client's name in the public notice.
Respondents argued that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and the investigation should be allowed to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. The petitioner's role was limited to issuing a public notice for his client, and there was no allegation of forgery or cheating against him. Continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The only allegations as against the Petitioner are that he had not disclosed the name of the clients in the public notice where he had invited objections by way of publication in the news papers and, as such, had...
The court held that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 107 of 2013 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking quashing of FIR No. 76 of 2013. The petition was reserved for judgment on 6th May 2014, written synopsis filed on 27th August 2014, and judgment pronounced on 5th November 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 465, 468, 471, 419, 420, 34
