Police Has Jurisdiction To Investigate Where Documents Forged Locally For Submitting To Foreign Court, Private Complaint Maintainable: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that a private complaint filed before a court in Bengaluru complaining about forged documents being submitted by a party before a foreign court is maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed a petition filed by Palaniswamy Veeraraja and others seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them based upon the private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It said,

“The documents were created by the accused who were in Bangalore and running the company at Bangalore. Therefore, the Bangalore Police has jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file the charge sheet.”

Dr Veerusikku Bommaiah Swamy had filed the private complaint alleging that accused No.1 is a registered partnership firm manufacturing textile goods in India. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Managing Partners and accused Nos.4 and 5 are other partners.

As per the complaint, the accused built a good relationship with the complainant and entered into a contract with him whereby complainant was to promote accused' business in the US in exchange for reimbursement of cost and profit sharing. It is alleged that though complainant incurred expense of over US $ 2,25,777.90 towards promoting the business of the accused, the latter resiled from their end of bargain. Following which the complainant instituted a case before US District Court in Northern District of Illinois in 2001.

It is alleged that in discovery the complainant found that the accused had fabricated certain documents at Bangalore and sent them to their counsel at USA. The complainant immediately referred the documents to the forensic expert and it was confirmed that these documents were forged.

Petitioner-accused argued that criminal proceedings against them are not sustainable since the business was done in US and the offence, if any, was committed before a Foreign Court and not in Bangalore.

Complainant opposed the plea saying the documents were fabricated at Bangalore and the same were produced at Foreign Court. Therefore, Bangalore Court also has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Government advocate contended that documents were fabricated at Bangalore and sent to the US Court and therefore, there will be no bar under Section 195(i)(b)(ii) of CrPC and a private complaint is maintainable.

The bench referring to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2017) and said “The respondent has rightly filed the private complaint to the learned Magistrate under section 200 of Cr.P.C., in turn, the learned Magistrate rightly refused [sic] the complaint for the purpose of investigation and submits the report as required under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the police have filed the charge sheet.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate S Mahesh for Petitioners

HCGP Anitha Girish FOR R1.

Senior Advocate K.P.S Palanivel Rajan FOR Advocate Sathies Kumar for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

Case Title: Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4624 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order