N. BHARATH REDDY Vs. C. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a private complaint in P.C.R.No.74 of 2022 and the order of reference of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the CrPC for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 406 r/w 120B, 114, 182, 191 and 192 of the IPC. The petitioners are accused Nos. 4 to 6 in the said private complaint.

(2.) The facts adumbrated are as follows: The 1strespondent is the complainant. The complainant claims to have purchased land bearing Sy.No.35/A totally measuring 10 acres in Gavarala Village, Kukunoor Taluk, Koppal District including 2 guntas of kharab land. The complainant purchases the said property on 23/12/2002. The averment is that he has purchased the said land from out of his own earnings and claims to be in possession of the said land of 10 acres in total since then. It is alleged that accused 3 to 6 are the relatives of the complainant and accused 5 and 6, are husband and wife and accused No.4 is the son of accused 5 and 6. Accused 5 and 6 are said to be partners of M/s Sree Raghavendra Enterprises and M/s Indian Minerals and Granite Company and accused Nos. 1 and 2 are said to be employees in the said partnership firm.

(3.) The complainant avers that he stayed in the residence of the accused while he was pursuing his Engineering degree in the years 1993 to 1997. Subsequent upon completion of graduation, the complainant shifts to United States of America to pursue his further studies. On coming back to India, the complainant is said to have assisted the management and administrative work of the business affairs of both the afore-mentioned partnership firms from 2002 to 2006. The narration is taken a little further and the narration turns into allegations. The complainant is said to have asked accused No.5 to return the documents concerning the schedule property on the decision of the complainant to quit of assisting and serving accused No.5 in the partnership firms. It is then accused No.5 misrepresents and lies about the sale deed dtd. 23/12/2002 and other property papers missing and assured the complainant that if the documents were traced, he would return the same to the complainant immediately. This is in the year 2005-2006.