Karnataka HC Quashes FIR on Forged ITR Allegation

Vidya Sachitanand Suvarna Vs State by Hennur Police (Karnataka High Court)

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Vidya Sachitanand Suvarna in a case involving allegations of filing forged Income Tax Returns (ITRs) with a fake Chartered Accountant (CA) seal. The court’s decision was based on jurisdictional grounds, emphasizing the necessity for appropriate legal channels in addressing such allegations.

The petitioner, Vidya Sachitanand Suvarna, challenged the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent chargesheet under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originated from a dispute between former business partners, where the complainant accused Suvarna of submitting forged ITRs in a complaint against them.

1. Background of the Case:

• • Suvarna was formerly a partner in a firm with the complainant.
  • A private complaint was filed by Suvarna against the respondent, alleging a concocted retirement deed.
  • In retaliation, the respondent filed a complaint alleging that Suvarna had submitted false ITRs with a forged CA seal.

2. Legal Proceedings:

• • The police investigation led to a chargesheet accusing Suvarna of cheating and forgery under IPC Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, and 506 read with Section 34.
  • The primary allegation was the submission of forged ITRs during the complaint process.

3. Court’s Reasoning:

• • The court observed that Suvarna, being a partner in the firm, could not be construed as cheating the respondent by filing ITRs.
  • The proper course of action for alleged forgery should be initiated by the affected party or the court where the forged documents were submitted, not by the respondent.
  • The court emphasized that jurisdictional authority lies with the appropriate court to take action against forgery.

Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings against Vidya Sachitanand Suvarna underscores the importance of jurisdictional propriety in legal matters. The ruling clarifies that allegations of forged documents must be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, ensuring that justice is served within the bounds of the law. This judgment not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

1. This petition is filed challenging the registration of a First Information Report which has ultimately culminated in filing of a charge-sheet.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 was earlier a partner of the firm along with the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had filed a private complaint being aggrieved by the alleged concoction of a retirement deed, under which petitioner No.1 came out of the firm and the wife of respondent No.2 was inducted into the firm.

3. After the initiation of criminal proceedings by the petitioners, a complaint was presented under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the petitioners (wife and husband) alleging that certain false income tax returns had been submitted by the petitioners in the complaint that they had lodged against respondent No.2 and this constituted offences under Sections 193, 195, 196, 209, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

4. The police, after investigation, have laid a chargesheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. It may be pertinent to state here that the entire gist of the allegations of respondent No.2 was that the income tax returns that the petitioners had submitted along with their complaint were forged documents. However, in the charge-sheet, it is merely stated that during investigation, with the intent of cheating, the petitioners had furnished forged income tax returns and which had the fake seals of a Chartered Accountant and signatures.

6. Having regard to the fact that petitioner No.1 was a partner of the firm, the furnishing of alleged forged income tax returns by petitioners in their complaint, cannot be construed as cheating respondent No.2 in any manner.

7. If, in fact, the income tax returns of some other person had been forged, it was for that person to initiate action and respondent No.2 herein cannot complain that he has been cheated by virtue of this particular forgery.

8. It may also be pertinent to state that if, as a matter of fact, the petitioners had produced forged documents, it is for the appropriate Court to which the forged documents are produced to initiate action against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 cannot contend that the documents produced before a Court of law are a forgery and therefore, initiate proceedings under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

9. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners are without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed.

10. The petition is accordingly allowed.

11. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.