GOPAL REDDY Vs. SMT. MUNIRAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition praying to quash the proceedings in PCR No. 1 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and Cr. No. 58 of 2016 of Electronic City Police Station registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(i)(ii) and 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 415, 416, 417, 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) IT is stated, general power of attorney was executed by Smt. Puttamma, Sri Rudrappa and Smt. Padma in favour of the petitioner in respect of property bearing Sy. No. 18/6 measuring 36 guntas and Sy. No. 18/7 measuring 35 guntas situated at Doddanagamangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The complainant i.e. the 1st respondent filed suits in O.S. Nos. 167 and 169 of 2013 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bengaluru Rural District and sought for injunction. The petitioner filed his detailed written statement. Thereafter, the suits were withdrawn by the 1st respondent by filing a memo stating that she does not press the suits Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed one more suit in O.S. No. 1568 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for declaration and injunction. The petitioner appeared and filed his detailed written statement. The application filed by the 1st respondent under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was dismissed. The 1st respondent preferred an appeal in MFA No. 5304 of 2014 before this Court and it was withdrawn on 16.9.2014. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru alleging that property bearing Sy. No. 18/6 measuring 36 guntas and Sy. No. 18/7 measuring 35 guntas situated at Doddanagamangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk originally belonged to Bhadra. After his death, the property was inherited by his sons Muneera, Mota and Junja. After their death, subsequently, the complainant has succeeded to the said property. It is alleged, the power of attorney dated 3.7.1997 is created by impersonation and thumb impressions are forged. The executors of power of attorneys are not legal heirs of Bhadra and they are not related. The general power of attorneys are forged by the petitioner and he has committed an offence by impersonation, forgery and fraud. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for necessary action.

(3.) THE learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge has referred the matter tor investigation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mico Layout Sub -Division under Sec. 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The 2nd respondent has registered a case in Cr. No. 58 of 2016 of Electronic City Police Station. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings in PCR No. 1 of 2016 on the tile of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and Cr. No. 58 of 2016 of Electronic City Police Station.