1 Reserved on : 10.03.2026 Pronounced on : 04.06.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH 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, R Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1013, 11TH 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 CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.20922 of 2022 pending before 24th 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 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 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 Radio Telephone Operator Licence, for which the 2nd 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- 2014, with the 2nd 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 that her husband was in a relationship with the 2nd 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 lodged complaint before the 3rd 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 3.4. The 3rd 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: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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 05-10-2017 to the DGCA/3rd 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 the 1st 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 completing the requisite medical tests nearly a year later, the 2nd 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 respondent on 4th 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 Commerce in Jyothi Nivas College. The 1st 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 the 1st 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 1st respondent he has confessed that he has affairs with wives of many officers. Since the 1st 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 pregnancy, but the 1st 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 30th 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 the marriage under Special Marriage Act on 14th 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 doing well. There has been uneasy silence at Home. The 1st 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. The marriage performed on 14th 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 Dated 15th 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, 11th 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: icanschoolmysore@gmail.com 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 ೋಾ ೋಪಾ ಪ ಯ ಾಲಂ ನಂ-2ರ ನಮೂರುವ ಆ ೋೆಯು ವೃ ಪರ !"ಾನ #ಾಲ$%ಾ&ದು( ಈ ಬ*ೆ+ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ /ಾ01ಾರಂದ [D.G.C.A] ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 30 ಪ5ೆದುೊಂ6ರುಾ ೆ. ಆ ೋೆಯು ಪ5ೆದುೊಂ6ರುವ !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9ೊಳ;<ೇಾದ ೆ, ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ /ಾ01ಾರಂದ ಪ0"ಾ=ಸಲ>ಟ ಪ9ೕ?ಕ9ಂದ [D.G.C. A Approved Examiner] ತಮA ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯ ವರಯನು4 ತ%ಾ9 ಸದ9 ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFಾ ವರಯನು4 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ /ಾ01ಾರೆG [D.G.C.A] ಸ ತಮA !"ಾನ #ಾಲನ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9 ೊಳ;<ೇಾ&ರುತ ೆ. ಈ /ೈ$ IಾJ-1 ರವರು 7ಾಗ9ೕಕ !"ಾನ%ಾನ 3ೇLಶ7ಾಲಯವM. ಪ0"ಾ=ೕಸಲ>ಟ [D.G.C.A] ಪ9ೕ?ಕ ಾ&ದು( IಾವLಜ3ಕ9*ೆ !"ಾನ #ಾಲನ ತರ<ೇ 3ೕಡುವMದು ಮತು ಈ*ಾಗPೇ !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ಪ5ೆದುೊಂ6ರುವ ವD$ ಗಳ ೌಶDಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯನು4 ಪ5ೆದು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ವರ !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯ !ತರೆ Qಾಗೂ ನ!ೕಕ9ಸುವ ಉೆ(ೕಶಾG& STಾರಸುU "ಾಡುವ ೆಲವನು4 "ಾಡು ರುಾ ೆ. Vೕ&ರು2ಾಗ ಆ ೋೆ ರವರು ತಮA !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9ೊಳW;ವ ಉೆ(ೕಶಂದ IಾJ 1 ರವರು 7ಾಂಕ:11-9-2014 ಮತು 12-09-2014 ಗಳಂದು Zೖಸೂರು !"ಾನ 3Pಾ(ಣದ ಾಯL3ವLVಸೇ, <ೆಂಗಳ]9ನ !ಜಯನಗರ ^ೕ_ `ಾಾ 2ಾD ಯ, ºÀA¦£ÀUÀgÀ , 117ೇ Zೖa ನರುವ ನಂ-1013ಯ ತಮA 2ಾಸದ ಮ7ೆಯರು2ಾ*ೆ+ ಆ ೋೆಯು ಅಕ0ಮ2ಾ& ತಮA !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9ೊಳW;ವ ಉೆ(ೕಶಂದ ತನ4 !"ಾನ #ಾಲನ ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯನು4 IಾJ-1 ರವರ cೊೆಯ 7ಾಂಕ:11-09- 2014 ಮತು 7ಾಂಕ:12-09-2014 ಗಳಂದು Zೖಸೂರು !"ಾನ 3Pಾ(ಣದ ನ5ೆ IಾJ-1 ರವ ೇ ತನ4 ೌಶಲD ಪ9ೕFೆಯ ವರಯನು4 ತ%ಾ9ರುವ ಬ*ೆ+ ನಕ ಾಖPಾಗಳನು4 ಸೃe ೊಂಡು, ಸುಳW; "ಾVಯನು4 ತನ4 ಪಸLನf ಪgಂh Pಾh ಬುi [PERSONAL FLYING LOG BOOK] ನ ನಮೂೊಂಡು ಾನು ಸೃe ರುವ ನಕ ಾಖPಾಗಳ ಮತು ತನ4 ಪಸLನf ಪgಂh Pಾh ಬುiನ ನಮೂ IಾJ-1 ರವರ ಸVಯನು4 ನಕ%ಾ& "ಾ6ೊಂಡು, IಾJ-1 ರವರ Qೆಸರು ಮತು ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯ ಸಂjೆDವMಳ; ನಕ ಮುzÉæ [ೕf] ಅನು4 ಅದರ ನಮೂ. ZೕಲGಂಡ ಎPಾ ನಕ ಾಖPಾಗಳನು4 2014 ರ ತನ4 !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9ೊಳW;ವ ಉೆ(ೕಶಂದ 7ಾಗ9ೕಕ !"ಾನ%ಾನ 3ೇLಶ7ಾಲಯ /ಾ01ಾರೆG[D.G.C.A]*ೆ ಸ ಅ/ಾ0"ಾ=ಕ2ಾ& ತನ4 !"ಾನ #ಾಲ7ಾ ಪರ2ಾ3*ೆಯನು4 ನ!ೕಕ9ೊಂ6ರುವMದು. Qಾಗೂ ಪ0ಕರಣದ ತ3jಾ ಸಮಯದ ಅವಶDಕ ಾಖPಾ%ಾದ ತನ4 ಪಸLನf ಪgಂh Pಾh ಬುi [PERSONAL FLYING LOG BOOK] ಅನು4 Qಾಜರುಪ6ಸೇ Iಾ?l 7ಾಶಪ6ರುವMದು ತ3jಾ ಸಮಯದ ಸಂಗ0Vದ IಾFಾlmಾರ ಾಖPಾಗnಂದ ಧೃಡಪ ರುತ ೆ. 31 ಆದ(9ಂದ ಆ ೋಯ !ರುದo ZೕಲGಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳನpಯ ೋಾ ೋಪಾ ಪ ಯನು4 ಸೆ.” 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 CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1, 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 body like ISKCON, Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON, 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 ISKCON, 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 authorised persons of ISKCON, 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. 17. The fulcrum upon which the learned counsel for the 2nd 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 OF GUJARAT2, 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. No. Date Cheque No. Account Amount Rs. Date of dishonour 1. 12-10-2015 8108 NRO Account No. 08540107512 30,00,000 12-10-2015 2 (2020) 3 SCC 794 39 2. 12-10-2015 8109 NRO Account No. 08540107512 30,00,000 12-10-2015 3. 30-10-2015 20801 NRE Account No. 085401000566 30,00,000 30-10-2015 4. 30-10-2015 20802 NRE Account No. 085401000566 30,00,000 30-10-2015 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