PATHAPATI PEERA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the de-facto complainant under Sec. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[ the Cr.P.C] challenging the order of discharge of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, vide order dtd. 26/8/2015, for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 420, 423 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[ the I.P.C] passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore[the Trial Court].

(2.) For better and effective understating of the gamut of the dispute, it is apposite to summarize at first the contentions of the Accused and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 under this factual matrix head. The Station House Officer, V Town Police Station, Nellore[the Investigating Officer], filed a charge sheet under Sec. 173 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' against the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 423 and 468 of 'the I.P.C.,' in Crime No.222 of 2005, which was registered on the basis of the report lodged by Pathapati Pera Reddy/de-facto complainant, wherein it was alleged that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 executed sale deeds in respect of Plot Nos.1, 1A, 2 and 4 in Sy.No.52/24 to Pratap Kumar, I.Supriya, Vommina Eswara Manoj Kumar and P.Rishita respectively, though they had no right and title over the property.

(3.) Under the authority of a General Power of Attorney document bearing No.509 of 2005, by which Potti Vijayalakshmi appointed the de-facto complainant as her GPA in respect of plot Nos.1, 1A, 2 and 4. Dwaraka Real Estate was a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dtd. 26/9/1984 comprising seventeen partners. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were partner Nos.10, 11 and 5 in the partnership deed. The de-facto complainant further alleged that Dwaraka Real Estates had appointed partner No.6/D.Lakshmi Narayana, partner No.7/P.Sesha Reddy and partner No.15/P.Badri Narayana Rao as GPA holders to deal with partnership properties under GPA dtd. 25/3/1985 vide document No.91/1985. It is further alleged that, except for those three persons no others had any authority to deal with the properties of partnership firm. After the demise of Kannaiah, partner No.16, partnership was reconstituted under the partnership deed dtd. 12/11/1988 comprising of the remaining sixteen partners. Thus, the GPA dtd. 25/3/1985 lapsed on 11/11/1988. Thereafter partner Nos.6, 7 and 15 had no authority to deal with the partnership properties in view of Sec. 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872[ the Act].