Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition of Dr S. Malini, a forensic expert presently working as Joint Director in Department of Forensic Science Laboratory Bengaluru, and her husband Dr B.K. Muralidhar, both seeking to quash an FIR and a complaint registered against them.
The complaint was registered by Halasuru Gate police under various sections of the IPC following an order passed by a lower court in 2010 while referring a complaint to the police for investigation.
Dr Malini, who has conducted several narco-analysis and brain mapping on numerous criminals, is accused of tampering documents to gain employment in the Forensic Psychology Department of Forensic Laboratory.
A private complaint was filed by one Pradeep Kumar G.S., an advocate, before the lower court in 2010. He had alleged that Dr Malini and her husband created a forged SSLC marks card of the former to manipulate date of birth, to get the job. Thus they have cheated the government.
It was alleged in the complaint that the forensic expert had furnished her date of birth as December 5, 1964, but the original marks card and other documents showed her date of birth as December 5, 1960.
Later a confidential inquiry was conducted by the higher police officials and it was found that actual year of birth was 1960. “A fake certificate was actually attested by her own husband knowing that it was fake,” the complaint stated.
The expert and her husband had approached the high court on various grounds, including that she has been exonerated following a detailed considered order passed in an earlier order of the High court, and hence same cannot be agitated by way of a private complaint.
“The matter has been concluded by a judicial order, therefore, such facts cannot be gone into once again by a criminal court,” the petitioner’s advocate had argued.
“When the investigation is at the threshold and it has to be done for the purpose of unearthing the truth and there is no malice or unfairness available on record and if the complaint averments is not so frivolous or vexatious, it cannot be simply quashed for the reason that the discharge order passed by the accused has already been quashed,” the court observed in its order dated July 5, 2018.
Lastly, as it is a 2010 case, the HC before dismissing their petition, ordered that it is necessary to direct the Investigating Officer to expedite the investigation and complete the same as expeditiously as possible and submit appropriate report to the court in accordance with law.
