Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R. Narayana Swamy, an advocate enrolled on 24.2.1995, initially worked as a junior under Shri B.P. Puttasiddaiah for six months and later under C.R. Laxmana Murthy until February 2000. After setting up independent practice, he occasionally assisted his former senior Laxmana Murthy. The respondent, M. Chandrappa, was a client of Laxmana Murthy in a civil suit (O.S. 2300/1999). Laxmana Murthy filed a vakalat and a criminal complaint against one L.R. Reddy and his wife, alleging offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 474, 441, 440 read with 120-B and 34 IPC. The petitioner affixed his signature on the vakalat at the instructions of Laxmana Murthy. The complaint was registered as PCR No. 93/2000. Subsequently, the respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others, which was registered as PCR No. 12937/2005 (later C.C. No. 20123/2008) before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioner sought quashing of these proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that the allegations did not disclose any offence against the petitioner, as there was no dishonest intention or knowledge of the falsity of the documents. The proceedings were quashed to prevent abuse of process of court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Allegations against advocate for affixing signature on vakalat and complaint at senior's instruction without personal knowledge of falsity do not constitute any offence under IPC - Held that proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of court (Paras 2-5). B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 474 - Essential Ingredients - Dishonest Intention - Mere affixing of signature on a document without knowledge of its falsity and without dishonest intention does not amount to forgery - Held that no offence is made out against the petitioner (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings for forgery and related offences against an advocate who merely affixed his signature on a complaint and vakalat at the instructions of his senior can be sustained in the absence of any dishonest intention or knowledge of the falsity of the documents.
Final Decision
The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in PCR No.12937/2005 (C.C.No.20123/2008) on the file of the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are quashed.
Law Points
- Criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if allegations do not disclose any offence
- mere signature on vakalat without dishonest intention does not constitute forgery
- advocate acting on senior's instructions without personal knowledge of falsity is not liable for forgery
