VILANGAT XAVEER JOSE, S/O. MR. V.M. XAVIER AND MR. P.M. SANU AND S/O. SRI P.G. MATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI CIRCLE, BANGALORE AND MR. MOHAMMED MUNEER, S/O. SRI A ISMAIL SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No 3/2007 of Chikkajaala Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B R/W Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) THE said case arises out of the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 before the Chikkajaala Police Station alleging that the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent have agreed to purchase 8 acres 02 guntas of land in Sy.No.52 in Bellahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, at the rate of Rs. 15,10,000/ - per acre and at the time of agreement, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/ - was paid by the Petitioner as wall as the 2nd Respondent to the sellers of the said lands and an agreement was entered into between them. Subsequently, since the 2nd respondent did not come forward to purchase the land. A notice was issued on 07.06.2005 by the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent and all the vendors asking them to come forward and register the land, after receiving the amount in the proportion in which they have agreed to purchase the land from the landowners. However, since the same did not materialize, on 09.09.2005, the 2nd Respondent got entire land of and Acres 02 guntas registered in the name of his father by name Sri. Ismail Salt, The petitioner thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.2291/2006 on 25.09.2006 and on OS. 10.2006, the notice of the said civil case was served on Respondent No.2. On 03.01.2007 the 2nd Respondent fifed a complaint before the Chikkajaala police station and police in turn registered the same as Crime No.3/2007 and commenced investigation. It is the said case, which is sought to be quashed in this proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that the petitioner has approached this Court on 09.03.2007 whereas the FIR is registered on 03.01.2007 this without leaving any scope for the police to investigate into the matter. He further submits that the accused namely the petitioner has committed -an offence of cheating and also the offence of forgery in respect of the documents said to be the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.01.2005 and the signature in the said Memorandum of Understanding appearing that of the complainant namely the 2nd respondent is not of the 2nd respondent and that the same is forged by the petitioner. The police have referred the said document to the handwriting expert and that the handwriting expert in Bangalore has reported that the signature is genuine one. However the 2nd respondent disputed the report of the handwriting expert of F.S.L. Bangalore and has taken the same for further investigation by a handwriting expert at FSL., Hyderabad resuit of which are contrary to the findings of the FSL, Bangalore.