Reaffirming the Duty of Deed Writers and the Limits of Section 482 CrPC in Cases Involving Prima Facie Evidence of Forgery

Introduction

The judgment in SHEKHAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, pronounced on January 10, 2025 by the Karnataka High Court, addresses a critical issue concerning the role and duty of a licensed deed writer under the Karnataka Registration (Deed Writers' Licence) Rules, 1979. The case involves a petition filed pursuant to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by petitioner Shekhar, a licensed deed writer, seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings registered in Crime No.123/2024. The proceedings relate to alleged offences including impersonation, forgery, and criminal breach of trust involving property transactions and the execution of disputed documents. The parties before the Court include the petitioner, acting by his counsel, and various state representatives and additional respondents asserting that the offences are prima facie met.

The central legal issue revolves around whether the submission by a deed writer—whose role is traditionally limited to drafting and preparing deeds—is sufficient to detach him from the responsibility of verifying complex documents, especially when there is prima facie evidence indicating impersonation and forgery. The judgment not only examines the limitations on quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but it also stresses the statutory duty imposed on deed writers in light of the Karnataka Registration Rules.

Summary of the Judgment

The Karnataka High Court rejected the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused deed writer. The judgment clarifies that even though the petitioner’s role was limited to writing deeds, the mandatory duty imposed under the relevant licensing rules requires him to perform due diligence in verifying documents before affixing his signature and seal. The Court found that the arguments asserting that the petitioner should not be held accountable on account of his narrowly defined professional role were untenable.

Emphasis was placed on the discrepancies noted between documents, such as the difference in names between the revenue records and the agreement of sale, and the misalignment with the standardized requirements under the Deed Writers' Licence Rules. The Court’s decision specifically held that the existence of prima facie evidence—highlighted by clear differences in identity through photographic evidence and document verification—necessitated a full trial. Accordingly, the petition was rejected and it was directed that the criminal proceedings continue as they are, with the observations made being limited to the Section 482 Cr.P.C. context.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively refers to previous landmark decisions of the Apex Court. Notably:

KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH: This case was pivotal in highlighting that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception rather than a rule. The Apex Court emphasized that the quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible only when it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, especially when there exists prima facie evidence against the accused.
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra: Here too, the court reiterated the limited role of quashing powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and stressed the inadvisability of using such powers when disputed evidence or triable issues are present.
Other decisions, such as State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and cases like CBI v. Arvind Khanna and State of Telangana v. Managipet, were also cited to underline that a high court should refrain from stepping into evidentiary evaluation, which is the domain of the trial court.

These precedents collectively influenced the Court’s conclusion, ensuring that the trial process is not circumvented, especially when a genuine dispute exists over critical factual matters.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was rooted in statutory interpretation and strict adherence to the conditions laid out in the Karnataka Registration (Deed Writers' Licence) Rules, 1979. The rules clearly define the responsibilities of a deed writer, which include, but are not limited to, verifying the title and ensuring that documents are prepared with clarity and accuracy.

In this case, the petitioner’s defense that his role is circumscribed to merely writing the deed was critically examined in light of his statutory duty. The Court underlined that his responsibility extends to identifying discrepancies in documents—particularly, the mismatch between the name recorded in the RTC (Y.J. Kumar) and that in the disputed agreement (Y.M. Jithin Kumar) along with the difference in photographic evidence provided with the Aadhar documentation.

Furthermore, the Court drew a clear line regarding the limits of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It highlighted that once substantial evidence has been collected and serious doubts have emerged about the authenticity of the documents, the proceeding cannot be precluded by a mere petition for quashing without full and fair investigation at trial.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment sets a significant precedent in two major respects. Firstly, it reinforces that licensed professionals such as deed writers have a non-delegable duty to perform thorough due diligence when drafting legal documents, even if their role may seem administrative or clerical at first glance. Failure to observe such duty can lead to criminal liability, particularly in cases where evidence of impersonation or forgery is prima facie visible.

Secondly, the decision underscores the cautious approach that courts should adopt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It confirms that the quashing power is not a tool for pre-trial vindication of accused parties in the presence of disputed factual matters. This will likely influence future judicial decisions by ensuring that serious, triable issues are held for resolution through a full trial, thereby protecting the integrity of the investigative process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts and terminologies featured in the judgment are simplified below for clarity:

Section 482 Cr.P.C.: This section grants inherent powers to the High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in exceptional circumstances. However, its use is limited and does not extend to bypass the evaluation of disputed evidence.
Deed Writer’s Duty: Under the Karnataka Registration Rules, a deed writer is not merely a scribe; he is legally obligated to verify documents, investigate titles, and certify that deeds are prepared correctly and in accordance with statutory requirements.
Prima Facie Evidence: This term implies that the evidence presented is sufficient to support a fact or raise a presumption unless rebutted by contrary evidence. In this case, discrepancies in identity and documents provided clear prima facie evidence of forgery.

Conclusion

The judgment in SHEKHAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA is significant on multiple fronts. It reaffirms that professionals such as deed writers must adhere strictly to their statutory duties, extending beyond mere document drafting to ensuring a scrupulous verification process. Moreover, it affirms the principle that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, particularly in situations where prima facie evidence indicates serious wrongdoing.

In summation, the Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that the integrity of legal documents is paramount. It also underscores the importance of following due process in criminal proceedings by not preemptively quashing cases where disputed facts require a thorough trial. This judgment is poised to influence future cases by reinforcing the responsibilities of licensed professionals and narrowing the scope of interim relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus preserving the accused’s right to a full judicial examination of the evidence.