D S MURTHY Vs. D BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case is filed by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 21-8-2007 in crl. M. P. No. 2988 of 2007 in C. C. No. 385 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the petition filed by the revision petitioner undersection245 (1)Cr. P. C. seekingdischarge from the prosecution was dismissed.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC in c. C. No. 385 of 2007. The first respondent herein is the stepmother of the petitioner-A. 1. She gave a complaint alleging that she is the owner of the house property situated in S. D. Road, Secunderabad, having got the same from her parental family and that accused 1 and 2, who are her step sons, approached the municipal authorities seeking mutation in the name of their sons accused 3 and 4 on the ground that the husband of the complainant executed a will in favour of his grand sons in respect of the said house property. The complainant further alleges that A-1 forwarded a letterto the Municipal authorities fabricating the signature of the complainant thereon purporting to seek the mutations and she came to know about it when the municipal authorities came for inspection in connection with the enquiry for mutation. According to the complainant, she never issued any such letter to the Municipal authorities and her signature was fabricated by first accused.

(3.) THE complaint was forwarded by the magistrate to the police for investigation and the Market police registered FIR in cr. No. 55 of 2000 under Sections 463, 646, 470 r/w 120-B IPC. Subsequently, they filed a final report referring the matter as a mistake of fact. On filing objections by the complainant before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner A-1 and 3 others. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed and the learned sessions Judge alleged the revision in respect of A-2 to A-4 but directed taking of cognizance against A-1. Thereupon, A-1 filed Crl. P. No. 4953 of 2004 seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The complainant filed Crl. P. No. 1219 of 2005 questioning the orders of the learned Sessions judge exonerating A-2 to A-4 and by common order dated 19-7-2006 this Court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner A-1 holding that prima facie there was case against A-1 and confirming the order of the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC with modification that A-1 shall not be tried for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, as the said offence is not made out. The petition filed by the complainant was dismissed holding that prima facie there was no case against A-2 to a-4. The said order dated 19-07-2006 of this court wherein cognizance against A-1 was directed to taken for the offence under sections 465 and 471 IPC has become final.