Rathnakala, JThe learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent.

The petitioner along with a co-accused has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation against him is, in the capacity of General Power of Attorney of CWs-7 and 8, he executed a sale deed in respect of a landed property in favour of CW-9. While presenting the deed for registration, he was required to produce sketch in Form No. 11-E. He along with accused No. 2 manipulated to prepare an 11-E sketch and represented as if he got the sketch from the office of the Special Tahsildar/CW-1 and produced the same before the Registrar and executed the sale deed, thereby he cheated the Government institution.

2. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, none of the ingredients quoted by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet are attracted in the present circumstances of the case. As such, it is a complaint by the Special Tahsildar, when the matter was placed on his table for effecting khatha in favour of the purchaser that too after four years of the sale transaction. Accused No. 2, who is the mediator working in the premises of Sub-Registrars office, is responsible for fabricating the document and he handed over the document to the petitioner as a genuine sketch. Believing him, the petitioner presented the sketch before the Sub-Registrar. So far there is no dispute between him and the purchaser or between him and the original owners. The alleged offence does not amount to cheating as contemplated under Section 415 of IPC. He has not intentionally induced any person to deliver any property. Hence, no case under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Likewise, no material is collected by the Investigating Officer that it was he, who has forged the document and when no case is made out under Section 468 of IPC, there cannot be any case under Section 471 of IPC for using a forged document with fraudulent/dishonest intention. Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

3. In reply, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, the document produced by him before the Sub-Registrar as 11-E sketch, when traveled to the Special Tahsildar for change of khatha, then the offence of forgery and cheating committed by him came to light. The signature on the revenue sketch, since was not his signature, he has lodged the complaint. Though no material is collected about active indulgence of the petitioner in forging the document, he cannot escape the liability of the offence for sharing common intention with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Before the case passes through trial, it is too early to quash the entire proceedings on the assumption that he has no dishonest intention to deceive anybody. Since it was the petitioner, who produced the document before the Sub-Registrar for registration of the document, though no direct evidence is available against him, it goes without saying that he has forged the document in connivance with accused No. 2 and has committed the offence.

4. In the light of the above rival submissions, I have gone through the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. CW-1/complainant in his complaint has stated that, this petitioner has somehow got the document prepared by himself or through somebody and CW-2/the Supervisor in the office of CW-1 corroborates the complaint allegations.

5. CW-3 is the Surveyor; CW-4 is the licenced Surveyor and their statement is opinion evidence. CWs-5 and 6 are the attestors to the sale deed. CW-7 is the Sub-Registrar and her statement is not useful in any way to the prosecution case. CW-8 is the owner of the land, who executed the GPA in favour of the petitioner. CW-9 is the purchaser of the property. All of them have stated that, accused No. 2, who works as an agent in the premises of Sub-Registrars office, procured the sketch by receiving money from accused No. 1. As per the statement of CW-9/official witness, accused No. 2 could not be traced.

6. The material collected by the Investigating Officer fails to make out culpability of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The basic requirement to hold a person guilty of offence is the intention to commit the offence, whether it is cheating or forging or anything else. There is no direct evidence about active indulgence of the petitioner in concocting or fabricating the document in question or his active connivance with accused No. 2 to commit the offence of cheating or forging the document. Allowing such criminal case on such sketchy evidence is nothing but waste of public time and energy and pure abuse of process of law and hence, same is liable to be quashed.

The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C. No. 5652/2011 pending on the file of the Additional C.J.M., Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2013 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it stands disposed of.