AUDREY DEEPIKA MABEN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
1
R
Reserved on : 10.03.2026
Pronounced on : 04.06.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5034 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
AUDREY DEEPIKA MABEN,
W/O WG CDE (RETD) ASHOKE MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
308 SANKALP VISHNU,
CHAMARAJAPURAM,
MYSORE – 570 020.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . VINITHA M.C.,
D/O M.C.MARIAPPA,
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
2
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
TH
1013, 11 MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 140.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
OPP. SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,
NEW DELHI – 110 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS (T & L).
(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 19.06.2023)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA.R, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. SAHANA B.V, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI H SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R-3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.20922/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIV A.C.M.M
BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CHARGESHEET DATED 10.06.2022
BEARING CR.NO.0104/2018 (AT ANNEURE-C) WHICH IS FILED IN
PURSUANCE OF FIR IN CRIME NO.0104/2018 (AT ANNEXURE-A)
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465,
471, 468, 473 AND 201 OF IPC; 2.CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE
CHARGESHEET DATED 10.06.2022 BEARING CR.NO.0104/2018 (AT
ANNEXURE-C) AND THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.0104/2018 (AT
ANNEXURE-A), REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
ALLGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 471, 468, 473 AND 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
th
proceedings in C.C.No.20922 of 2022 pending before 24 Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of crime in
Crime No.104 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 471, 468, 473 and 201 of the IPC.
2. Heard Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner; Sri Sowmya R, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1; Smt. Sahana
B.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri
H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner claims to be the country’s first woman
Director General of Civil Aviation-approved examiner of Microlight
Aircrafts. She asserts that she was a gold medalist NCC gliding
4
cadet in the year 1994, had set a national record in microlight
aviation in the year 2003, and that her feats have found a place in
the Limca Book of Records. Her accomplishments in the realm of
aviation are said to have adorned several newspapers, journals and
publications, rendering her a figure of considerable recognition in
the niche sphere of microlight flying.
3.2. The genesis of the lis dates back nearly thirteen years.
On 26-11-2013, the petitioner undertook her General Flying Test
for renewal of her Pilot’s Licence (Microlight), bearing No.25 Flight
nd
Radio Telephone Operator Licence, for which the 2
respondent/complainant acted as the designated examiner. The
Directorate General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’), however, did not
approve the renewal of the petitioner’s licence at that juncture, on
the ground that certain medical examinations were yet to be
completed by her. Upon completion of the said medical formalities,
the petitioner is stated to have once again undergone the Pilot’s
Licence Microlight renewal skill test on 11-09-2014 and 12-09-
nd
2014, with the 2 respondent herself functioning as the examiner.
5
3.3. It transpires that, on 09-10-2015, the petitioner obtained
a decree of divorce from her husband in M.C.No.569 of 2014. The
decree, according to the petitioner, stemmed from the allegation
nd
that her husband was in a relationship with the 2
respondent/complainant. The petitioner would further aver that the
discord between herself and the complainant thereafter
transcended the boundaries of personal animosity and seeped into
the professional arena as well, both being engaged in the same
specialized field of microlight aviation. According to the petitioner,
despite the dissolution of her marriage, the complainant continued
to harass her owing to the lingering bitterness arising out of the
aforesaid relationship. It is in this backdrop that, between
05-10-2017 and 25-01-2018, the complainant is said to have
rd
lodged complaint before the 3 respondent-DGCA alleging that no
flying skill test had in fact been conducted for renewal of the
petitioner’s licence and that the petitioner had sought renewal of
her licence without undergoing the mandatory flying examination.
The gravamen of the allegation was that the petitioner had forged
the complainant’s signature and seal, in the records pertaining to
renewal of her licence.
6
rd
3.4. The 3 respondent-DGCA, upon receipt of the complaint,
appears to have initiated an examination into the allegations and
called upon the complainant to furnish the personal logbook relating
to microlight flying operations. What followed thereafter was a
volley of communications exchanged between the complainant and
the DGCA authorities. As no immediate action ensued to the
satisfaction of the complainant, she ultimately approached the
jurisdictional Police with the allegation that the petitioner had
fabricated the logbook and forged both her signature and official
seal for securing renewal of her licence. The complaint thus
culminated in registration of Crime No.104 of 2018 for the offences
afore-quoted. The jurisdictional Police, upon conducting
investigation, initially submitted a ‘B’ report concluding that no
material existed to proceed against the petitioner. The concerned
Court, however, declined to accept the ‘B’ report and directed
reinvestigation into the matter. Pursuant thereto, further
statements came to be recorded and, eventually, a charge sheet
was laid before the competent Court alleging commission of the
offences in question. Cognizance having been taken, the
proceedings came to be registered as C.C.No.20922 of 2022. It is
7
the institution of the said criminal proceedings and the filing of the
charge sheet that has driven the petitioner to the doors of this
Court in the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER’S:
4. The learned senior counsel Smt. Jayna Kothari appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that DGCA had
conducted a 5-month long investigation but did not revoke or
cancel the licence of the petitioner or privileges attached to the
licence as a pilot. The FIR and the charge sheet have been filed by
the jurisdictional Police despite the complainant’s complaint is
pending investigation at the hands of the DGCA. The complainant’s
signature in the flight logbook and the PLM renewal test are the
same and are her original signatures, which cannot be said to be
forged. The professional rivalry and personal dispute between the
two concerning the husband, has become the reason for all these
complaints. The learned counsel submits that to constitute forgery
under Section 463 of the IPC, it must be demonstrated that renewal
documents are false documents, which documents have been made
8
fraudulently for use under Section 464 of the IPC. The complaint to
the Police is registered after three years of the alleged offence has
taken place. No reason is given as to why the complaint is
registered at such belated stage and this is enough to quash the
proceedings. The learned senior counsel would seek to place
reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court, all of which
would be considered qua their relevance in the course of the order.
RESPONDENTS:
COMPLAINANT:
nd
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2
respondent/complainant would refute the submissions of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in contending
that the complainant did not carry out any skill test on the
petitioner on 11-09-2014 and 12-09-2014. Therefore, the
signatures of the complainant on the skill test report and the
personal logbook are forged. The initial complaint was made on
rd
05-10-2017 to the DGCA/3 respondent. When no action was
taken, the impugned complaint comes to be registered. There are
witness statements to corroborate that the complainant was not
9
even present in the Mysore Aerodrome where test was conducted.
The learned counsel would submit that there are several
corroborative materials for the complainant to prima facie
demonstrate that the petitioner has forged the logbook. The FSL
report clearly indicates that the signatures found on the logbook or
the renewal test are not that of the complainant. Therefore, the FSL
report must be taken note of and the crime must not be quashed
only on the ground of delay.
STATE:
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
st
the 1 respondent/State would however submit that initially the
Police filed a ‘B’ report finding no evidence and on further
investigation and examination of FSL report, have filed a charge
sheet. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-
blown trial.
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA:
7. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan would however submit that investigation
on the complaint of the complainant is itself pending and had not
10
been taken forward, on the score that the complainant had
registered a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and would
submit that his role is limited to the said submission.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
9. The facts afore-narrated being largely matters borne out
by the record, they would not necessitate any prolix reiteration. The
narrative, however, begins to unfold on 26-11-2013, when the
petitioner undertook the General Flying Test for renewal of her
Pilot’s Licence (Microlight) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the renewal
test’ for the sake of brevity). The intricate technicalities and
procedural nuances of the said test need not detain this Court,
particularly in view of the fact that the Directorate General of Civil
Aviation (‘DGCA’) did not accord approval to the renewal of the
licence at that stage, not on account of any deficiency in flying
11
competence, but solely on the ground that the petitioner was
required to undergo certain prescribed medical examinations.
10. Time thereafter rolled by, and upon the petitioner
nd
completing the requisite medical tests nearly a year later, the 2
respondent, who had functioned as the designated examiner,
proceeded to renew the petitioner’s licence on 12-09-2014. The
proceedings culminating in such renewal are germane to the lis and
therefore merit reproduction. They read as follows:
12
13
The signatures found in the test of renewal are that of the
complainant. After the said renewal, the petitioner continues to fly.
11. The averments in the petition touching upon the
simmering personal discord between the petitioner and the
complainant, though seemingly collateral, assume
undeniable significance in the backdrop of the events that
subsequently unfolded . The petitioner is stated to have instituted
proceedings seeking dissolution of her marriage, alleging that the
complainant and her husband were entangled in an illicit
relationship. The matrimonial Court, upon consideration of the
14
material placed before it, granted a decree of divorce in favour of
the petitioner in M.C.No.569 of 2014. The findings rendered by the
concerned Court, insofar as they bear relevance to the present lis ,
deserve reproduction. It reads as follows:
“ REASONS
POINT NO.1 and 2:
8. (These points are taken up together for discussion in
order to avoid repetition of facts)
9. The petitioner has corroborated her case by
reproducing the same in her evidence that, she met the first
th
respondent on 4 June 1993 at NCC Cadet in No.1 KAR AIR
SQN NCC and during the said period she was in the third year of
NCC and in the first year of her college studies in Bachelor of
st
Commerce in Jyothi Nivas College. The 1 respondent was
already married and moved out of his marital home and hence
they have started living in relationship. It is Further deposed by
petitioner/PW1 that in the year 1997, she was enrolled herself
as Glider Pilots and also obtained the Licence. In the same year
st
the 1 respondent has completed his commercial Pilot Licensing
Course at Delhi. After returning from Delhi, he had symptoms of
infidelity and hence when she had questioned the same with the
st
1 respondent he has confessed that he has affairs with wives of
st
many officers. Since the 1 respondent has not suppressed
anything, she has continued living with him and they have
started "Aero Sports Private Limited" company at Bengaluru,
which run well. During the said period the petitioner conceived
the first child. However, she continued working through her
st
pregnancy, but the 1 respondent has not provided her proper
medical treatment. She had taken rest only for 3 weeks during
the postnatal period. At that time, first respondent has
developed intimacy with the second respondent. Even he has
not bothered to provide basic necessities to the child. The
petitioner had also seen them in a compromising position at
their room. Even the students have started complaining about
15
the attitude of the first respondent. As per the advice of the first
respondent, second respondent took a year off, in order to
complete her licence procedure. It is also deposed by PW1 that
in the absence of second respondent life continued and she has
conceived the second child during May 2004. Once again during
June 2004 first respondent has started pressurizing her to take
back the second respondent to the company. Even second
respondent has also requested her to take her back and hence
she was taken to the company. But once again they have
started their old attitude and the first respondent has neglected
to maintain her and the children. The second child was born on
th
30 June 2005. When the relationship of first and second
respondents become intolerable, the petitioner has left the
matrimonial house during December 2005 along with her
children. Though the petitioner has given divorce to his first wife
only during February 2006, he has falsely informed the
petitioner that he has given divorce even much earlier to that.
Hence in the interest of children during July 2006, got registered
th
the marriage under Special Marriage Act on 14 August 2006.
In this connection petitioner has produced marriage certificate
at Ex.P.1 and also the birth certificates of the children at Ex P.2
to Ex P.4. The respondent has not bothered to contest the case
and hence, there is nothing on record to disbelive the evidence
produced by the petitioner.
10. It is also deposed by Pw1 that once again during
October 2006, the second respondent was back from France and
hence the disruption started in the family. During 2008 to 2010
both the children were attending the school in Mysuru. The first
respondent used to stay at Bengaluru more than 20 days in a
month. Everything turned out is bleak. Hence, the petitioner
has set up a Kindergarten in June 2008 at Mysuru, which started
st
doing well. There has been uneasy silence at Home. The 1
respondent never contributed towards the maintenance of the
family but started living with another woman. Further, it is
deposed that the petitioner has also been a victim of over all
personality of the first respondent. According to petitioner, the
first respondent isolating the petitioner from friends and family
and extremely suspicious about her, he was addicted to alcohol,
withdrawing privileges to her and to the children and
pressurizing her and the children to live with minimum cloths
and withdrawing himself from sexual activity with the petitioner
16
and was not providing financial assistance to her etc. Hence the
petitioner has decided to dissolve the marriage.
11. The evidence of the petitioner/PW1 remained
unchallenged. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
evidence produced by the petitioner. Hence materials on record
clearly establishes before the court that first respondent by
living in adultery subjected the petitioner for cruelty. Under
these circumstances, I opine that petitioner is entitled for decree
of divorce. Hence, I have answered point no.1 in the Negative
and Point: No.2 in 200 the Affirmative .
Point No.3:-
12. In view of my findings on the above points and
reasons assigned thereunder, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner-wife against
the respondent-husband under section 10(i) (x) of
India of Divorce Act is hereby allowed.
th
The marriage performed on 14 August 2006
before Marriage Officer Mysuru South, Mysuru is
hereby dissolved by decree of divorce with immediate
effect.
Draw a decree accordingly.
Under the circumstances, the Parties are
directed to bear their own costs.”
A perusal of the said judgment would unmistakably reveal that the
decree of divorce was granted, prima facie, on the footing that the
husband of the petitioner had been living in an adulterous
relationship. Though the correctness or otherwise of those findings
17
may not directly arise for adjudication in the present proceedings,
the aftermath of the said decree and the sequence of events that
thereafter transpired cannot altogether be divorced from the
controversy at hand.
12. The personal bitterness that emanated from the
matrimonial discord appears to have thereafter permeated into the
professional sphere occupied by both the petitioner and the
complainant, each operating within the narrow and specialized
realm of microlight aviation. It is not without significance that,
nearly two years after the decree of divorce, the complainant chose
to address a complaint before the DGCA alleging that the petitioner
had forged the skill test logbook and had managed renewal of her
flying licence, without even undertaking the mandatory flying test.
The complaint, dated 05-10-2017, is reproduced in extensor and it
reads as follows:
“05 OCT’ 17
The Director Of Training & Licencing
Director General Of Civil Aviation
Technical Centre, Opposite Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi 1100 03
Subject : Forgery of Skill Test for Renewal of Pilot's
18
Licence Microlight(PLM) No.25 and FRTOL
(R) No.304
w.r.t Capt Audrey Deepika Maben by Capt Audrey
D Maben
Ref.: File No. 1-286/1997-L-2
Dear Sir,
With ref. to the subject, I, Capt Vinitha M C, holding a PLM. No
43, also an approved Examiner on Microlights. In the last 13
yrs, I hold a 100% safety record.
I, place on record and inform your office that I haven't
carried out any Skill Test for Capt Audrey Deepika Maben,
for renewal of PLM No. 25 and FRTOL(R).
Sir, Capt Audrey Maben had approached me for renewal, she
wanted me to carryout the skill test without actually flying. The
same was refused by me. Subsequent to this, it has come to my
knowledge now, that she has forged my signatures for skill test
and the same was used to renew her PLM No. 25 and FRTOL(R)-
304 in Sept’ 2014.
Mrs Audrey Deepika Maben holds: PLM No. 25
FRTOL(R) No.: 304
GPL: 1002 (lapsed)
Examiner Rating AV22017/2/2004-/FID(Microlights)
Capt Maben resides at: No. 308, Sankalp Vishnu, Geeta Road
Chamarajapuram, Mysore, Karnataka 570005.
Sir, I request your office to take immediate suitable action in
this matter and withhold any renewal of PLM and related
licences. Sir, forgery is a grave offence and this must not be
treated lightly.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Sd/-
Capt Vinitha MC
19
DGCA Approved
Examiner
AV22017/2/2004-/FID
1013, 11 main, Hampi Nagar,
Bangalore 560 104 / Ph. No. 9845937599”
On perusal of the complaint, what immediately strikes the
eye is that the complaint is singularly barren of any
foundational material explaining the extraordinary delay in
setting the criminal law into motion . The alleged acts of forgery
pertain to September 2014, whereas the complaint before the
DGCA emerges only in October 2017. No whisper of explanation
is forthcoming as to why the complainant, herself an
examiner functioning in the same field of aviation and fully
aware of the petitioner’s continued flying operations,
remained silent for nearly three years. The silence becomes
even more conspicuous when one notices that the petitioner
and the complainant were not strangers thrown together by
chance circumstances, but professionals operating within
the same confined aviation ecosystem. The complainant,
being an examiner, could scarcely feign ignorance of the fact
that the petitioner continued to fly aircrafts, necessarily on
20
the strength of a licence that stood renewed. Yet, no
complaint surfaces contemporaneously . The allegations
suddenly spring forth only in the year 2017, long after the alleged
occurrence and significantly after the decree of divorce had been
granted.
13. The Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, upon
receipt of the complaint, responded by communication dated
15-12-2017, calling upon the complainant to produce all supporting
documents, particularly the personal logbook for microlight flying
operations, for examination of the allegations. The tenor of the
communication itself reveals that the authorities had not accepted
the allegations at face value and had sought material substantiation
before proceeding further. The communication dated 15-12-2017
reads as follows:
“F. No. 286/1997-L-II
th
Dated 15 Dec, 2017
To
Capt. Vinitha M C,
1013, 11 main,
Hampi Nagar,
Bangalore-560104.
21
Subject- Forgery of Skill test for Renewal of PLM
No. 25 by Ms. Audrey D Maben-reg.
Dear Madam,
1. Reference may please be made to your letter dated
23/11/2017 on the subject.
2. In this regard, it is intimated that the documents related
to your complaint dated 05/10/17 made against Ms.
Audrey D Maben are being examined in this office
however, you are advised to submit your Personal Log
Book for Micro light flying for further processing of the
matter.
3. It is further intimated that, failing to comply with the
direction made above within 10 days from the receipt of
this letter, matter will be treated as closed.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/-
(Ved Prakash)
Director of Operations (T&L)
For Director General of Civil Aviation”
Thereafter, the complainant approached the jurisdictional Police on
20-02-2018 with a detailed complaint alleging forgery of her
signature and seal in the skill test report and logbook pertaining to
renewal of the petitioner’s Pilot Licence Microlight (PLM). The
complaint reads as follows:
“From:
Capt Vinitha M C
Daughter of M C Mariappa,
Aged about 37 years,
22
Residing at No. 1013,
th
11 Main, Hampi Nagar
Bangalore 560104
Phone: 9845937599
To:
The Station House Officer/ The Inspector
Vijayanagar Police Station
Bangalore 560 040
Subject: Complaint of forgery and misuse of my
signature in Skill Test and Log Book for
renewal of Pilot's Licence Microlight(PLM)
No.25 and FRTOL (R) No.304 with regard to
Capt Audrey Deepika Maben by Capt. Audrey
D Maben
Ref.: File No. 1-286/1997-L-2
Sir,
I am a certified Pilot and Director General Civil Avaiation
(DGCA) approved Examiner on Microlights. As part of my
approval, I am required to carry out training and flying tests to
assess flying skill and competency, knowledge about the
aircraft, emergency actions, skill and recommend pilots for
renewal and issue of pilots licences. I am entrusted with the
responsibility of not only carrying out the tests but also held
responsible and accountable for the pilots skill, in the
eventuality if anything untoward happens.
I bring to your urgent notice that my signature and seal
have been forged and used to create a fictitious record by one
Ms Audrey D Maben. The said Capt Maben has forged my
signature both in the Skill Test Report and in her Log Book, to
seek renewal of her flying licence. The copy of the logbook and
skill test is annexed for your immediate reference. The sole
beneficiary of the said forgery is the said Ms Audrey D Maben.
On having forged my signature, she has further submitted
the said forged documents to Director General Civil Aviation
(DGCA), New Delhi for renewal of PLM. No.25 and
23
FRTOL(R)No.304. The same stands renewed today along with
other licence GPL. No. 1002 which are renewed based on the
forged skill test report.
On my visit to the Mysore Airport on 29 Sept'17, to
inspect my aircraft parked in Hagar No.2, and while sorting the
files in the cupboard, I found the copy of the Skill Test Report in
the name of Ms. Audrey D Maben, purported to be under my
seal and signature. I have not signed any such Skill Test Report
of the said Ms Audrey D Maben and therefore the said Skill Test
Report is obviously a forgery and the sole beneficiary of such
forgery is Ms Audrey D Maben.
It is also relevant to state that by my personal knowledge
and based on the verification of the records, I have not
physically flown with Ms Audrey D Maben on 11& 12 Sepr'14. I
have also not signed or affixed the seal, on the report and log
book, required for renewal of licence. Consequently the Skill
Test Report containing details to the effect that I have physically
flown the said Ns, Audrey D Maben on the said dates is a false
document and got prepared for the benefit of securing a renewal
of the licence by a false statement amounting to forgery by Ms
Audrey D Maben.
I have immediately reported the said facts and the
forgery of my signature and renewal of licence based on such
forged Skill Test Report to the authority granting the renewal
being the Civil Aviation Department of Training & Licensing and
have requested the said Authority to carry out an enquiry and
the copies of my correspondence with DGCA are enclosed for
your immediate attention.
The Department is in the process of an inquiry. On 23 Jan
18, I was requested by the said Authority to submit the original
of my log book for scrutiny. I have also placed several requests
to the Authority to issue the Original Copy of the Skill Test
Report purported to be submitted and the same is awaited.
The Department having intimated Ms Audrey D Maben of
the enquiry about the fabricated and forged documents and are
investigating the matter with regard to the licence secured. The
issue with regard to the forgery of my signature is however
outside the purview of the investigation and I am affected by
24
the same. The said Ms Audrey D Maben has forged my signature
and in the event of any incident during her flying on the basis of
such illegally secured Certificate, I having allegedly certified her
eligibility, I may be affected both directly and indirectly.
Perhaps, being aware of the investigation, on 30 Nov’ 17,
Ms Audrey D Maben was interested to again submit false reports
of flying for one Mr Ramesha Chandra Ramnani, for which she
insisted to enter my hangar, when this was denied, she
threatened to send goondas to assault me and come to my
place of work and create trouble. In the past, on several
occasions she has threatened me and my family members of
creating trouble outside our home and work place. She has also
on several occasions threatened to run a vehicle over me, and
kill me and herself. I fear for my life, my reputation as an
Examiner will be tarnished if illegally a person can carry out
forgery of my signature and have a Pilots Licence renewed.
As on date Ms Audrey D Maben is set to go on a
Circumnavigation Expedition based on renewal of Pilots licence
done by forgery of my signature. In the eventuality of any
incident and accident and enquiry during the expedition, my
forged assessment and fitness for flying of licence will be under
question. In the light of the expedition which is scheduled to be
launched in March’ 18, it is important to take cognizance of the
matter and register a complain immediately.
Details about Audrey Deepika Maben holds : PLM No. 25
FRTOL(R) No.: 304
GPL: 1002 (renewed based on PLM)
Examiner Rating AV22017/2/2004/FID(Microlights)
Ref. File No. 1-286/1997-L-2
At present Capt Maben resides at No. 308, Sankalp Vishnu,
Geeta Road, Chamarajapuram, Mysore, Karnataka 570005. Her
telephone number is 9845203647. Her office address is as
under:
I Can The Learning Centre
#13/A, Vivekananda Road,
Yadavagiri, Mysuru - 570020
(Near Das Prakash Paradise)
25
Contact Number: +91 821 - 2410941
E-mail: [email protected]
The entire efforts by Ms Audrey D Maben is to tarnish my
image as a DGCA Approved Examiner and as a Pilot as a
consequence of her threats to my life. I request you office to
come forward and protect me from the threats made by Ms
Audrey D Maben; register a case against her for forgery, for
threat to my life by registration of an First Information Report
(FIR) and take immediate action.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Sd/-
Capt Vinitha M C
1013 11 Main Hampi Nagar
Bangalore 560 104
9845937599”
The complaint extracted supra , narrates at considerable length, the
apprehensions entertained by the complainant regarding the
possible misuse of her credentials and the potential consequences
that may ensue in the event of any aviation mishap involving the
petitioner. Yet again, what stares glaringly from the
complaint is the deafening absence of any explanation for
the delay. By the complainant’s own showing, the alleged
forgery had occurred in September 2014. The complaint to
the Police, however, emerges only in February 2018, nearly
four years after the alleged incident. The explanation offered
26
is that the complainant, while sorting through files in her
cupboard on 29-09-2017, stumbled upon a copy of the skill
test report purportedly containing her forged signature . Such
an explanation, in the considered view of this Court, appears wholly
unconvincing, particularly when viewed in the context of the
professional proximity between the parties and the continued
aviation activities of the petitioner during the intervening years.
14. The timing of the complaint itself assumes significance.
The complainant specifically adverts to the petitioner’s impending
circumnavigation expedition scheduled for March 2018 and
expresses apprehension that any mishap during the expedition may
cast aspersions upon her as an examiner. The complaint,
therefore, unmistakably carries the impression that the
imminent participation of the petitioner in the expedition
served as the immediate trigger for initiation of criminal
proceedings, rather than any sudden discovery of forgery
after years of oblivion .
27
15. The Police, upon initial investigation, filed a ‘B’ report
concluding that no material existed to proceed against the
petitioner. The complainant, however, filed a protest memo
contending that she had not been able to furnish the requisite
documents during the earlier investigation and now stood ready to
cooperate with the investigating machinery. The learned Magistrate,
accepting the said contention, declined to accept the ‘B’ report and
directed further investigation, observing that the earlier
investigation appeared incomplete owing to non-cooperation by the
complainant herself. The concerned Court passes the following
order:
“Heard the arguments of counsel for the complainant on
'B' report. Perused. The complainant has lodged the complaint
before the Vijayanagar Police Station for the offences punishable
u/s.420, 465, 471, 468 and 473 of IPC. After investigation
Investigating officer has submitted the 'B' report. On issuance of
notice to the complainant, she appeared through her counsel
and filed the protest memo. I carefully gone through the protest
memo.
The counsel for the complainant submits that the
Investigating officer has submitted the 'B' report only on the
ground that the complainant has not assisted the Investigating
officer inspite of repeated notices, she has produced the
documents. Further submits at that time, complainant could not
secure those documents. Now they have secured the documents
and they are ready to furnish the same to the Investigating
officer. The counsel for the complainant further submits since
now the complainant is ready, they are praying to direct the
Investigating officer to re-investigate the matter. In support of
28
their arguments, they have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in ILR 1999 Kar 2388 in between
G.H.Nagarajaiah Shetty v/s. State of Hennur Police.
By considering the arguments, I once again gone through
the final report of the Investigating officer and it was submitted
during the investigation, the Investigating officer has caused 5
requisitions to produce the originals at first time and second
time, they have caused 4 notices to produce the any other
documents as evidence. Since inspite of notices, the
complainant has not come forward to produce the documents
and as they could not produce any evidence they filed this 'B'
report. As submitted by the counsel for the complainant now he
is ready with the documents and they undertakes to produce
the same before the Investigating officer. Under such
circumstances, merely because there was no co-operation to the
Investigating officer 'B' report shall not be accepted, when the
is. complainant ready to co-operate with the investigation. As
per the dictum of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said
decision it is held that:
Further investigation can only be made by the
Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate
feels, after considering the final report, that the
investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that
there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to
the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and
direct the police to make further investigation.
As per the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
if the investigation is incomplete, it will be open to the
Magistrate to decline to accept it or direct the police for further
investigation. As discussed above, the Investigating officer has
submitted the 'B' report in this case due to non assistance of the
complainant and Hence, this court which is incomplete
investigation. I feels it is just and necessary to direct for further
investigation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The 'B' report filed by the Investigating officer, The
Vijayanagar Police Station is hereby rejected.
Investigating officer is directed to investigate the matter
29
with further assistance of the complainant and submit
final report.
The complainant is hereby directed to produce all
the necessary document within 30 days from today to the
Investigating officer in order to assist the investigation.
Intimate the same.
Await final report by 13/11/21.”
(Emphasis added)
Pursuant thereto, the Police undertook further investigation and
ultimately filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. The gravamen
of the allegations, as reflected in Column No.7 of the charge sheet,
is that the petitioner had fabricated documents showing that the
complainant had conducted the requisite flying skill test on 11-09-
2014 and 12-09-2014 at Mysore Airport, forged the complainant’s
signature and seal in the skill test records and personal flying
logbook, and thereafter submitted the same before the DGCA for
renewal of her flying licence. It is further alleged that the petitioner
failed to produce the original personal flying logbook during
investigation, thereby causing destruction of evidence.The summary
of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.7 reads as follows:
“ಈ ೋಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಯ ಾಲಂ ನಂ -2 ರ ನಮೂ ರುವ ಆ ೋ ೆಯು ವೃ ಪರ
[D.G.C.A]
!"ಾನ #ಾಲ$%ಾ&ದು( ಈ ಬ*ೆ+ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ /ಾ01 ಾರಂದ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4
30
.
ಪ5ೆದು ೊಂ6ರು ಾ ೆ ಆ ೋ ೆಯು ಪ5ೆದು ೊಂ6ರುವ !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4
ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಳ;<ೇಾದ ೆ , ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ /ಾ01 ಾರಂದ ಪ0"ಾ=ಸಲ>ಟ ಪ9ೕ?ಕ9ಂದ [D.G.C. A
Approved Examiner]
ತಮA ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯ ವರಯನು4 ತ%ಾ9 ಸದ9 ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFಾ
ವರ ಯನು4 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ /ಾ01 ಾರೆG [D.G.C.A] ಸ ತಮA !"ಾನ #ಾಲನ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4
.
ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಳ;<ೇಾ&ರುತ ೆ
ಈ /ೈ$ IಾJ -1 ರವರು 7ಾಗ9ೕಕ !"ಾನ%ಾನ 3 ೇLಶ7ಾಲಯವM . ಪ0"ಾ=ೕಸಲ>ಟ
[D.G.C.A]
ಪ9ೕ?ಕ ಾ&ದು( IಾವLಜ3ಕ9ೆ !"ಾನ #ಾಲನ ತರ<ೇ 3ೕಡುವMದು ಮತು ಈಾಗPೇ
!"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ಪ5ೆದು ೊಂ6ರುವ ವD$ ಗಳ ೌಶDಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯನು4 ಪ5ೆದು
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ವರ !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯ !ತರ ೆ Qಾಗೂ ನ!ೕಕ9ಸುವ ಉ ೆ(ೕಶಾG&
.
STಾರಸುU "ಾಡುವ ೆಲವನು4 "ಾಡು ರು ಾ ೆ
Vೕ&ರು2ಾಗ ಆ ೋ ೆ ರವರು ತಮA !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4
ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಳW;ವ ಉ ೆ(ೕಶಂದ IಾJ 1 ರವರು 7ಾಂಕ: 11-9-2014 ಮತು 12-09-2014 ಗಳಂದು
Zೖಸೂರು !"ಾನ 3Pಾ(ಣದ ಾಯL3ವLVಸೇ, <ೆಂಗಳ]9ನ !ಜಯನಗರ ^ ೕ_ `ಾ ಾ
ºÀA¦£ÀUÀgÀ 11 -1013
2ಾD ಯ, , 7ೇ Zೖa ನ ರುವ ನಂ ಯ ತಮA 2ಾಸದ ಮ7ೆಯ ರು2ಾ*ೆ+
ಆ ೋ ೆಯು ಅಕ0ಮ2ಾ& ತಮA !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಳW;ವ
-1 :11-09-
ಉ ೆ(ೕಶಂದ ತನ4 !"ಾನ #ಾಲನ ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯನು4 IಾJ ರವರ cೊ ೆಯ 7ಾಂಕ
2014 :12-09-2014 -1
ಮತು 7ಾಂಕ ಗಳಂದು Zೖಸೂರು !"ಾನ 3Pಾ(ಣದ ನ5ೆ IಾJ ರವ ೇ
ತನ4 ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯ ವರ ಯನು4 ತ%ಾ9 ರುವ ಬ*ೆ+ ನಕ ಾಖPಾ ಗಳನು4 ಸೃe ೊಂಡು ,
[PERSONAL FLYING LOG
ಸುಳW; "ಾV ಯನು4 ತನ4 ಪಸLನf ಪ gಂh Pಾh ಬುi
BOOK] ನ ನಮೂೊಂಡು ಾನು ಸೃe ರುವ ನಕ ಾಖPಾ ಗಳ ಮತು ತನ4 ಪಸLನf
-1 , -1
ಪ gಂh Pಾh ಬುiನ ನಮೂ IಾJ ರವರ ಸVಯನು4 ನಕ %ಾ& "ಾ6 ೊಂಡು IಾJ
zÉæ [
] .
ರವರ Qೆಸರು ಮತು ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯ ಸಂjೆDವMಳ; ನಕ ಮು ೕf ಅನು4 ಅದರ ನಮೂ
ZೕಲGಂಡ ಎPಾ ನಕ ಾಖPಾ ಗಳನು4 2014 ರ ತನ4 !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4
ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಳW;ವ ಉ ೆ(ೕಶಂದ 7ಾಗ9ೕಕ !"ಾನ%ಾನ 3 ೇLಶ7ಾಲಯ
/ಾ01 ಾರೆG [D.G.C.A] ೆ ಸ ಅ/ಾ0"ಾ=ಕ2ಾ& ತನ4 !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3ೆಯನು4
.
ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಂ6ರುವMದು Qಾಗೂ ಪ0ಕರಣದ ತ3jಾ ಸಮಯದ ಅವಶDಕ ಾಖPಾ %ಾದ ತನ4
[PERSONAL FLYING LOG BOOK]
ಪಸLನf ಪ gಂh Pಾh ಬುi ಅನು4 Qಾಜರುಪ6ಸ ೇ
Iಾ?l 7ಾಶಪ6 ರುವMದು ತ3jಾ ಸಮಯದ ಸಂಗ0V ದ IಾFಾlmಾರ ಾಖPಾ ಗnಂದ
.
ಧೃಡಪ ರುತ ೆ
31
ಆದ(9ಂದ ಆ ೋ ಯ !ರುದo ZೕಲGಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳನpಯ ೋಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಯನು4
ಸ ೆ .”
The learned jurisdictional Court, on receipt of the charge sheet,
took cognizance of the offences and registered the impugned
criminal case. The question that now looms large before this Court
is, whether the continuation of the proceedings, initiated after such
inordinate and unexplained delay, can be permitted to survive the
scrutiny of law.
16. As observed hereinabove, the alleged test dates back to
the year 2014. The complainant is not an outsider to the
transaction, but the very examiner whose signature is
alleged to have been forged. Being in the same field of
operation as the petitioner, the complainant would
indubitably have been aware that the petitioner continued to
fly aircrafts, necessarily on the basis of a licence renewed by
the DGCA. The explanation that the complainant suddenly
“discovered” the alleged forgery while cleaning her
cupboard years later hardly inspires confidence. If such
32
belated awakenings, unsupported by any cogent
explanation, are permitted to trigger criminal prosecution
after years of silence, it would open floodgates for abuse of
the criminal process and reduce the administration of
criminal justice into an instrument of personal vendetta . In
the considered view of this Court, permitting continuation of the
proceedings in the peculiar facts of the case would amount to
nothing short of an abuse of the process of law and would run foul
of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of
1
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL , wherein it is
held as follows:
“…. …. ….
14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had
taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the
substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge
Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any
action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful
SKCON
body like I , Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006
written by the Branch Manager of I SKCON , Kolkata. Respondent
2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting
the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of
bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the
court was filed in the year 2009.
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 650
33
15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate
delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court
itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the
proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by I SKCON , Kolkata
Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not
have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our
opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing
the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken
place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a
sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.
16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the
complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which
the FIR was registered at Ballygunge Police Station on
20-2-2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations
made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in
question there was no material or document produced by
the complainant to substantiate the allegations against
the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said
complaint, there was no evidence collected by the
investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients
constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468,
471, 406 and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in
the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet are taken at
their face value none of the ingredients constituting the
alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior
Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants had
strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining
to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said
bus, that the said documents were executed by the then
SKCON
authorised persons of I , Kolkata, in our opinion, the
said documents could not be considered in these
proceedings, the same being not the part of the charge-
sheet papers .
17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the
other documents on record of the instant appeals that the
investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or
substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them
for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained
or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly
34
forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of
vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the
circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not
only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of
court's precious time.
18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have
power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Though the powers under Section 482 should be
sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said
powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of
process of law is made out by the accused. In State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy , (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] the
Supreme Court had held that the criminal proceedings
could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if
the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings
to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court
or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings
are to be quashed.
19. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark
decision State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] , after considering relevant provisions more particularly
Section 482CrPC and the principles of law enunciated by this
Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under
Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of
powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen
number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under :
(SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
“ 102 . In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
35
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
( 1 ) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
( 2 ) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
( 3 ) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
( 4 ) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
( 5 ) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
36
( 6 ) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
( 7 ) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge .”
20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [ State
of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] this Court had observed that the
court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it
finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of court.
21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the
complaint it has been recently observed by this Court
in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. [ Hasmukhlal D.
Vora v. State of T.N. , (2022) 15 SCC 164 : (2024) 2 SCC
(Cri) 632] that though inordinate delay in itself may not
be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint,
however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into
consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for
quashing a criminal complaint.
22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if
the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the
respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained
delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and
abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with
the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious
prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of
37
process of law, more particularly when neither the
allegations made in the complaint nor in the charge-
sheet, disclose any prima facie case against the
appellants. The allegations made against the appellants
are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can
ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient
ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused .”
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, on the score of sheer delay, the proceeding is required
to be set at naught.
nd
17. The fulcrum upon which the learned counsel for the 2
respondent seeks to rest her case is, the report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory. The FSL report, in essence, opines that the
signature found on the disputed document, allegedly generated
nearly three years prior to the complaint, does not tally with the
admitted signature of the complainant. The very same allegation
has also been projected before the DGCA, where the matter is
presently under examination and no conclusive determination has,
as yet, been rendered either in favour of the complainant or against
the petitioner. Therefore, to permit the petitioner to be dragged
through the rigours of a criminal trial, solely on the strength of
technical irregularities alleged in the process of renewal of licence
38
and an inconclusive expert opinion would, in the considered view of
this Court, run directly contrary to the law declared by the Apex
Court in the case of RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL v. STATE
2
OF GUJARAT , wherein it is held as follows:
“…. …. ….
18. The issue relates to the alleged forgery of four
receipts dated 21-8-2010, 22-8-2010, 26-8-2010 and 28-8-
2010 each for a sum of Rs 30,00,000 totalling to Rs 1,20,00,000
issued by Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. For the recovery of
the amount of Rs 1,20,00,000, Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai filed
Special Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015 in October 2015. After
receiving summons in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015,
Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar entered appearance and filed
application seeking leave to defend and the said application was
allowed on 19-4-2016. On application filed by Appellant 3
Hasmukhbhai in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, four
receipts were sent to forensic science laboratory for
obtaining the opinion of handwriting expert. The
handwriting expert's report was received in the Court on
15-12-2016 to the effect that all the four receipts were
not signed by Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. It was
thereafter on the complaint filed by Respondent 2, FIR
No. I-194/2016 dated 28-12-2016 was registered against
the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC .
19. In CC No. 367 of 2016, case of Appellant 3
Hasmukhbhai is that Yogeshbhai issued four cheques each for a
sum of Rs 30,00,000, details of which are as under:
Sl. Date Cheque Account Amount Date of
No. No. Rs. dishonour
1 . 12-10-2015 8108 NRO Account No. 30,00,000 12-10-2015
08540107512
2
(2020) 3 SCC 794
39
2 . 12-10-2015 8109 NRO Account No. 30,00,000 12-10-2015
08540107512
3 . 30-10-2015 20801 NRE Account No. 30,00,000 30-10-2015
085401000566
4 . 30-10-2015 20802 NRE Account No. 30,00,000 30-10-2015
085401000566
Total 1,20,00,000
On presentation, the above cheques were dishonoured on the
ground “Payment stopped by the Drawer”. After issuing the
legal notice, Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai filed criminal case in CC
No. 367 of 2016 on 8-12-2015 pertaining to two cheques
bearing Nos. 20801 and 20802. It was only thereafter,
Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar had filed the criminal complaint
dated 20-3-2016 and also filed another criminal complaint dated
14-4-2016 against Appellant 1 Rajeshbhai and Appellant 2
Vipulkumar. Since the police had not registered the FIR,
Respondent 2 filed SCRAs Nos. 5945 and 6349 of 2016 before
the High Court for seeking directions for lodging FIR. The High
Court vide orders dated 4-10-2016 [ MahendrabhaiJawaharbhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat , 2016 SCC OnLineGuj 4802] and 6-9-
2016 [ Yogesh Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , 2016 SCC
OnLineGuj 3254] disposed of those petitions directing the police
to investigate into the matter.
20. Be that as it may, in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015,
leave to defend was granted to Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar
on 19-4-2016. On the application filed by Appellant 3 in the said
Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, four receipts filed in the suit
were sent to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert
has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not
tally with the sample signatures which were of
Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter,
complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which,
FIR No. I-194/2016 was registered on 28-12-2016
against the appellants for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants, in Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015, Issue 5 has
been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved
that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature
40
illegally and created forged receipts”. When the issue as to
the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the
civil suit, in our view, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to
continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the
stand taken by them in the civil suit.
21. It is also to be pointed out that in terms of
Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the opinion of handwriting
expert is a relevant piece of evidence; but it is not a
conclusive evidence. It is always open to Appellant 3-
plaintiff to adduce appropriate evidence to disprove the
opinion of the handwriting expert. That apart, Section 73
of the Evidence Act empowers the court to compare the
admitted and disputed writings for the purpose of
forming its own opinion. Based on the sole opinion of the
handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been
registered. Continuation of FIR No. I-194/2016, in our
view, would amount to abuse of the process of court and
the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482
CrPC in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2735 of
2017 to quash FIR No. I-194/2016 is to be allowed.
22. The High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the
criminal case in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed by Appellant 3
Hasmukhbhai under Section 138 of the NI Act. As pointed out
earlier, Yogeshbhai has admitted the issuance of cheques. When
once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the
presumption would arise under Section 139 of the NI Act in
favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant Appellant
3. The nature of presumptions under Section 139 of the NI Act
and Section 118( a ) of the Evidence Act are rebuttable.
Yogeshbhai has of course, raised the defence that there is no
legally enforceable debt and he issued the cheques to help
Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai for purchase of lands. The burden lies
upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing
evidence. The High Court did not keep in view that until the
accused discharges his burden, the presumption under Section
139 of the NI Act will continue to remain. It is for Yogeshbhai to
adduce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. When
disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be
adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act ought not to have been quashed
by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 CrPC.
41
Though, the Court has the power to quash the criminal
complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act on the legal
issues like limitation, etc. criminal complaint filed under Section
138 of the NI Act against Yogeshbhai ought not to have been
quashed merely on the ground that there are inter se disputes
between Appellant 3 and Respondent 2. Without keeping in view
the statutory presumption raised under Section 139 of the NI
Act, the High Court, in our view, committed a serious error in
quashing the criminal complaint in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed
under Section 138 of the NI Act.
23. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and
these appeals are allowed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 2735 of 2017 filed by the appellants is allowed and FIR No.
I-194/2016 is quashed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
24588 of 2017 filed by YogeshbhaiMuljibhai Patel stands
dismissed. Case filed by Appellant 3 HasmukhbhaiRavjibhai
Patel under Section 138 of the NI Act — CC No. 367 of 2016
stands restored. The 5th Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bharuch
is directed to proceed with the case in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed
under Section 138 of the NI Act and afford sufficient opportunity
to both the parties and dispose of the same in accordance with
law. Summary Suit No. 105 of 2015 shall be proceeded in
accordance with law without being influenced by any of the
views expressed by the High Court in the impugned order.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has unequivocally held
that the opinion of a handwriting expert, though a relevant piece of
evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is by no stretch
conclusive in nature. The Court has cautioned that criminal
prosecution ought not to be permitted to continue merely on the
basis of such expert opinion, particularly when the foundational
42
dispute itself remains the subject matter of adjudication before
another competent forum.
18. The observations of the Apex Court resonate with striking
force in the facts of the present case. Here too, the gravamen of
the allegation rests upon disputed signatures and technical
documentation concerning renewal of aviation licences. The DGCA,
which is the specialized statutory authority governing civil aviation
and licensing, is itself seized of the matter and is yet to arrive at
any definitive conclusion regarding the alleged misconduct
attributed to the petitioner. In such circumstances, to permit the
criminal machinery to proceed ahead of the competent regulatory
authority would not only be precipitous, but would also risk
irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. Such a course would
inevitably degenerate into an abuse of the process of law. The
criminal Court cannot be transformed into an arena for
determination of highly technical aviation disputes, when
the very regulatory body entrusted with such determination
is yet to record any finding against the petitioner.
43
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings before the XXIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.20922 of
2022, as also the charge sheet dated 10-06-2022 in
Crime No.104 of 2018 stand quashed.
(iii) It is made clear, however, that the observations
rendered herein shall not impede or prejudice the DGCA
in any manner whatsoever. The DGCA shall remain at
liberty to independently examine the complaint,
scrutinize the records, assess the technical material and
arrive at its own conclusion in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any observation made in the present
proceedings.
Consequently, pending application if any, also stands
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:BR