DEVARAMANE SRINGESHWARAIAH Vs. M N NARASIMHA PANDITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD C. H. Jadhav the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri S. Krishnaiah and Smt. Sheela Krishna in Crl. p. 1236/99 and Sri T. K. Vishwajith in Cr. P. 1476/99.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case in P. C. R. No. 18/99 are that the respondent filed a complaint alleging that she had filed a suit O. S. 61/90 on the file of the learned civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Chickmagalur, against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- on the basis of the on-demand pronote executed by the accused persons. When the suit was pending, the accused persons produced the documents purported to have been executed by the complaint in O. S. 61/90 marked as Ex. D-3, D-27 and D-33. The complainant stated that the above said documents were not genuine and signatures found therein were forged signatures of the complainant, so also the signatures of late T. N. Krishna Bhat and K. V. Ramappaiah who are highly regarded and respected persons of Sringeri Tk. and these documents are got up documents. On the basis of this complaint, the Court has taken cognizance and directed issue of notice to the accused persons therein. These accused persons filed Cr. P. 1236/99 before this Court to quash the proceedings pending before the Court.

(3.) ONE Nagaraj filed a suit in O. S. 26/90 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, to recover a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest against the petitioners. The petitioners/defendants filed their written statement on the ground that they had not taken any loan from the said Nagaraj and the respondent who is a close associate of the said Nagaraj had advanced a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on a condition that the petitioner should deliver areca crop grown in the garden land of the petitioners. The respondent got executed a money bond for Rs. 40,000/- in the name of Nagaraj. In pursuance of the terms of the money bond, the petitioners handed over the areca crop grown in their land to the respondent and have thus repaid the loan. It is further averred that having received the loan amount, the respondent in order to wreck vengeance has got filed a suit for recovery of the course of evidence as defendant has produced the receipts issued by the respondent herein stating that the loan is repaid. This being the true state of affairs, the respondent who is not concerned whatsoever with the said suit is also not a party has filed a private complaint in PCR No. 23/99 on the file of the J. M. F. C. , Sringeri, alleging that the documents produced by the petr. No. 2 in the Court were forged documents for the purpose of cheating the complainant, etc. The learned Magistrate has referred the matter to the police for investigation by order dt. 27-3-1999. Being aggrieved by that order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class dt. 27-3-1999 in PCR. No. 23/99 the petitioner filed petition Cr. P. 1476/99.