AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 244/2009 on the file of the Mangalore South Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, have filed this petition praying to quash the proceedings initiated against them. The Tahsildar of Mangalore Taluk on 17.07.2009 filed a complaint before the Police Inspector of Mangalore South Police alleging that these two petitioners and six others who are officials working in the Taluka Office have tampered with the revenue documents, more particularly the RTCs and have changed the names and thereby have forged the documents and accordingly requested to take action against these two petitioners and six others named in the complaint. Mangalore South Police, on the basis of the said complaint, have registered the case and have taken up investigation.
The petitioners being aggrieved of the proceedings that have been initiated against them on the basis of the complaint filed by Tahsildar are before this Court seeking to quash the same.
Sri. K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the complaint has not been filed by competent person and as the offences alleged are non-cognizable offences the police cannot investigate the matter without taking permission of the Jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings be quashed. A perusal of the material now on record reveals the Tahsildar on receipt of the record has filed the complaint before the police. The allegations in the compliant discloses that these petitioners along with officials working in the Tahsildar office have tampered with the revenue documents inasmuch as they have corrected the names in the RTCs of these two petitioners. In view of the said allegations in the complaint as the case is now being registered for the offences punishable u/s 420 of IPC, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Insofar as authority to file compliant is concerned, the Tahsildar being competent authority to file complaint in a case of this nature, it cannot be said that the complaint is not filed by the duly authorized person. In view of the allegations in the complaint as the case is still at the stage of investigation, I do not find any justification to interfere with the investigation of the case.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and it is dismissed.