PUSHPA S. SHETTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent -State. Perused the records.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that there are several civil disputes pending between the parties and there is a restraint order passed by the High Court restraining the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property i.e. site No. 3 to 5 carved out of survey No. 73/1 of Kaggadasapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, making certain false allegations in the complaint, the respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint before the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bangalore City, for the offence punishable under Section 418, 419, 463, 464, 465, 466 and 470 of IPC. The learned Magistrate in fact, referred the said complaint for investigation and report u/s. 156(3) of Cr.PC and the Police are investigating into the matter. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the entire investigation and consequently the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 herein.

(3.) ON careful perusal of the complaint averments in PCR No. 51678/2013, it is seen that land bearing survey No. 73/1 of Kaggadasapura Village measuring 1 acre 15 guntas was subjected to partition between one Ramakka -wife, Kempamma and Mallakka -daughters of Papaiah, who died intestate. The said Mallakka sold her share in favour of one M. Srinivas on 26.6.2008 under a registered sale deed. It is alleged that the said land was sold as an agricultural land and the said M. Srinivas in -turn sold it to the complainant by two different sale deeds dated 22.12.2008 and 07.05.2009 respectively. It is further submitted that the complainant got converted the said land on 11.6.2011 from agriculture to residential purpose.