N JAYARAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

(2.) THE petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Shidlaghatta in Chikkaballapura Taluk, approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chickballapur in CC No. 100/2011 dated 10.12.2013, which was affirmed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapur in Cr.R.P. No. 49/2014 dated 31.07.2014 in refusing to discharge the accused No. 9/petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 420 read with Section 120(B) of IPC. I have carefully perused both the orders and also the charge sheet papers produced before this Court. The brief factual matrix of the case is as follows:

(3.) BE that as it may, with regard to the facts mentioned in the complaint, after reference of the complaint u/s. 156(3) of Cr.PC to the police, the police have investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet. During the course of investigation the police have recorded the further statements of the complainant and other witnesses. As could be seen from the statement of the witnesses, the whole allegations have been made against accused Nos. 1 to 7 and nothing has been stated about the participation, intention and also the role of the present petitioner. On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet particularly, the statements of one Anjinappa, Chotu Sab and Maqbul Sab discloses that they came to know about one Gopalappa, his wife and children have created certain documents and sold the disputed lands in favour of one Lingaraju of Vijayapura (accused No. 8 herein) in the said case. Thus, the name of this petitioner has not been whispered in the statement of any of the witnesses. The alleged sale deed, executed by Gopalappa and his wife and children in favour of accused No. 8, is also produced. It discloses that accused No. 9 (petitioner herein) is the person, who drafted the said document.