JAGADEESH RAO H. Vs. R. NAGABHUSHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 31.10.2015 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and so also to quash the order dated 10.03.2016 vide Annexure-B passed by respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Section 136 of Cr.P.C. in case No.MAG.S.R.No.14/2015-16 and to grant such other reliefs as deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 by filing the petition/application under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. claiming certain easementary rights over the land in Sy.No.161/1 measuring 1.73 acres and Sy.No.161/2 measuring 2.96 acres of Rayee Village of Bantwal Taluk, as a result, the case has been registered as MAG.S.R.No.14/2015-16. The said petition was filed on 25.10.2014 during the pendency of the suit filed for partition by the parties, who are the co-owners. It is the case of the petitioners herein that one Mr.Ramesh Rao, who is the brother of these petitioners has been arrayed as respondent in the said proceeding and these petitioners have not been arrayed as parties in the said proceedings though they are co owners of the schedule property. It is also their contention that one Mr. Shyama Rao was the propositus. He held several immovable properties and the schedule property including its larger extent. One Mr. Prabhakar Rao, who is the father of these petitioners had five children. Respondent No.1 is also the son of the said propositus Mr. Shyama Rao. Ramesh Rao, who had been arrayed as respondent is one of the sons of Prabhakar Rao. The suit was filed by other two sons of the said propositus Mr. Shyama Rao in the year 2013 itself. It is also averred that even no notice has been issued to Mr. Ramesh Rao, who has been arrayed as respondent in the said proceedings. The impugned orders at Annexures-A and B are obtained behind the back of the petitioners herein and also the said Ramesh Rao. It is also contended that suit was compromised by filing the compromise petition on 04.03.2017 and also preliminary decree was drawn in terms of Annexure-E. It is also contended that the RTC pertaining to the schedule property at Annexure-F also does not disclose any pathway. It is also contended that consequent upon this order, the respondent trespassed the property of the petitioners and also tried to make use of the pathway. As a result, the case was registered in terms of Annexure-G. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also produced at Annexure- H, the copy of the petition/application filed before respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 in terms of Annexure-H.