MOHD. GHOUSE Vs. ANANT PADMANSABH ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint dated 25.11.2012 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Old Hubli Police Station, Hubli, in OH Crime No. 216/2012. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the complaint before Police by Sri Anant Padmanabh Acharya against the petitioner along with other accused persons are that, the sites formed in Re -Survey No. 91/1 of Krishnapura Village, Hubli Taluk, in the extent of 5 acres 33 guntas of land belong to one Ramachandra Shindhe, particularly plot Nos. 227 and 228. The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 along with other accused persons joined hands with each other, created duplicate fake bonds and documents with an intention to cheat the complainant, received Rs. 5 lakhs from him and also some gold from him, on the assurance that they will give those plots i.e. Plot Nos. 227 and 228 to him. The complainant once again approached the accused person either to give plots or pay back the money and the gold given by him to the accused person. But the accused persons not only refused to pay any amount or to give plot to the complainant but also threatened the complainant with dire consequences of killing him and etc., On these allegations, the Police started the investigation. In the meantime, when the matter is still under investigation, this petition is filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

(2.) THE order sheet in OH Crime No. 216/2012 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, III Court, Hubli, discloses that the accused persons have appeared and filed an application for grant of bail and the accused persons were released on bail. The order sheet dated 9.1.2013 also discloses that the learned Magistrate, at the request of the Police granted custody of A3 and A4 for a period of three days for the purpose of discovery and recovery of some material objects from them. Thereafter, A3 and A4 were enlarged on bail. Once again the matter was posted for awaiting of final report from the police. In that juncture, the present petition is filed.

(3.) THE learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the second respondent -State submitted that the investigation is still in progress and in view of this petition, the police have not progressed the investigation, but it is at the fag end, the police would file appropriate report before the court after the completion of the investigation. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor also rightly submitted that the petitioner at this stage cannot imagine what report the police may submit to the Court. In the event of Police submitting any B -report, then there is no question of proceeding with this particular petition. In the event of police filing any charge sheet, the court has to examine the charge sheet before taking any cognizance against the accused persons. If the learned Magistrate against this petitioner takes any cognizance, then also, this petition does not survive.