LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-155

NARAYAN RAO SINDHYA, S/O LATE PUTTU RAO SINDHYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE COMPLIANT BY KUDUR POLICE STATION, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGRAM DISTRICT

Decided On April 12, 2011
Narayan Rao Sindhya, S/O Late Puttu Rao Sindhya Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Bangalore Compliant By Kudur Police Station, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagram District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him in C.C. No. 646/09 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jordan.) and JMFC, Ramanagara. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 6 in the said case.

(2.) ON the basis of the complaint lodged by one B. Jayakumar, resident of Maruthi Layout, Sriramapura, Bangalore on 22.6.2009, Magadi Police registered case in Crime No. 185/09 for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 418, 447, 468 and 420 r/w 149 IPC against one Sundara Bai and others in respect of a sale deed dated 8.6.2006 purported to have been executed by Smt. Savithri Bai, Gopala Rao Shinde in favor of one Jagannatharao. It is the allegation of the complainant that the property which was the subject matter of the said sale deed bearing Survey No. 60 of Vaddarahalli Village of Magadi Taluk measuring 1 acre 29 guntas was owned by his grand mother Savithri Bai and he being the only heir of Savithri Bai, succeeded to the said property and his grand mother Savithri Bai died 50 years ago and one Sundara Bai along with one Keshava Rao and Gopala Rao purported to have executed sale deed in respect of the said property and Smt. Sundara Bai by impersonating herself as Savithri Bai though as on the date of the sale deed Savithri Bai was not alive, got the sale deed registered and thereby the persons named therein have committed the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed the charge sheet against 7 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 418, 419, 465, 468 and 420 r/w 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and ordered issue of summons. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No. 6 has presented this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner