SANDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.P.No.5364/2016 is filed by petitioners who are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 4 and Crl.P.No.9390/2016 is filed by the petitioners who are arraigned as Accused Nos.7 and 9 in C.C.No.4698/2014 which is pending before the Court of II ACMM at Bangalore arising out of Crime No.25/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 441, 468, 471 r/w 149 of IPC.

(2.) Though these petitions are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and so also, learned HCGP for respondent -State, the matter is taken up for final disposal. But keeping in view the scope of Section 301 of Cr.P.C., there is a limited extent of the counsel for the defacto complainant. But the said counsel has to assist to learned HCGP but not independently. Consequently, heard the arguments advanced by learned HCGP in both these petitions.

(3.) It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that the case in Crime No.25/2011 came to be registered by Tilaknagar Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 441, 471 of IPC based upon the complaint filed by one Hanumantha Rayappa. It is alleged in the complaint that Smt.Susheela and Smt.Pramila, daughters of late M.J.Rajanna, are the relatives of the complainant and they are the owners of a residential property bearing No.1151, new No.10, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore and the khata of the said property was inherited by their father late Rajanna by virtue of release deed executed on 03.09.1979 by their brothers and sisters in their favour. Such being the case, Mary Sridhar, Mary Margarate and Albert Philip who are arraigned as Accused Nos.6, 4 and 2 respectively had filed a suit in O.S.No.6248/2005 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore seeking decree of partition of 1/8th share over the said property claiming that said Mary Sridhar is the wife of late M.R.Sridhar and others are their children. The said M.R.Sridhar is said to be brother of Susheela and Pramila. The suit is pending for consideration. These are all the facts grounded in this petition seeking intervention of this Court.