RATNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A person by name Basavaraja Lakkundi lodged a complaint making allegations against one Niyaz Ahmed, Shakeel Ainapur and M.K. Attar for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 120B, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. On the basis of the said first information report, the Sub -Urban Police, Dharwad investigated the matter, submitted the charge sheet. Though at the time of first information report, the name of this petitioner Smt. Ratna, who is an Advocate Notary residing at Saptapur, Dharwad was not arrayed as accused, but at the time of filing of the charge sheet her name was also included in the charge sheet by the Police. The Court also took cognizance of the offence and it appears having come to know about the issuance of the summons, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings against her.

(2.) ON perusal of the charge sheet averments, it is mentioned that the complainant and CWs 12 to 15 are the owners of two house properties in CTS No. 101/1E./MF. It is stated that in order to defraud the complainant and CWs 12 to 15 the accused persons named in the first information report i.e. Niyaz Ahmed, Shakeel Iqbal Ainapur and M.K. Hattar have joined hands with each other, created a false power of attorney forging the signatures of the complainant and the other persons have created sale deed in favour of accused No. 2 as shown in the FIR. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the said Power of Attorney created by accused Nos. 1 and 2 was notarized by the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused No. 3 by the Police in the Charge Sheet. But as could be seen from the brief Note in the charge sheet, there is no specific averments to show, how this accused No. 3 is arrayed as accused No. 3 and on what basis is also not stated. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Court to look into the statements of witnesses whether anybody has implicated this petitioner into the crime.

(3.) IT is also seen from the records that one Mr. Shakeel who was arrayed as accused No. 2 in the first information report moved this Court in Crl. P. No. 7900/2010 and it appears that there was a compromise between the complainant Basavaraj and the said Shakeel and this Court recording the said compromise between the parties, quashed the proceedings against the said Shakeel who appears to be the purchaser of the property.