M M MALLESHAIAH Vs. K GURURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30-2-2001 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in PCR No. 128 of 1997, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by this revision petitioner.

(2.) ASSAILING the order of dismissal of the complaint the revision petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. The allegations of the petitioner in his PCR are that the respondent 1-accused colluding with BDA officers and officials obtained a lease-cum-sale deed dated 27-9-1985 and the possession certificate dated 11-10-1985 and made use of the same in the Civil Court. Likewise, the respondent-accused is responsible for creation of lease-cum-sale deed dated 27-9-1985 and possession certificate dated 11-10-1985 in favour of smt. B. K Padmavathamma. On this ground the petitioner has sought for penal action against the respondent under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 469 of the IPC. After registering the same the Trial Court referred it to the police for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. After investigation the police have submitted the 'b' report that the case is purely of civil nature and the respondent-accused has not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. The petitioner complainant filed a protest petition. The Trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner and after considering his sworn statement and the documents produced by him dismissed the complaint on 20-8-1987. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) THE grounds urged in this petition are that BDA Rules do not permit reconveyance of the revenue sites and the Trial Court did not consider the ratio laid down in decision reported in the case of B. N. Sathyanarayana Rao v State of Karnataka. Further, the procedure for allotment of BDA site has not been followed and the documents were forged by the respondent.