SARASWATI N Vs. MOHAMMADSAB AZAMATSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned JMFC IV Court at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) in C.C.No.338/2014 arisen out of the Private Complaint No.77/2012.

(2.) The summary of the case of the petitioner is that, the present respondent No.1 had instituted a private complaint against her and three other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 406, 408, 415, 416, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The summary of the complaint was that, the complainant has been an allottee of a residential site bearing Plot No.2327, CTS No.9463 measuring 40' x 50', situated in Sector No.11, Malmaruti Extension Belagavi, under the allotment made by the Corporation of City of Belagavi, vide allotment letter No.CCB/MME/SR/249/94-95 dated 108.1994. The complainant took possession of the land after getting the registered sale deed executed in his favour vide sale deed dated 24.03.2004. Thereafter, his name was entered into the City Survey Records pertaining to the site allotted to him. That being the case, the brother of the present 1st respondent/complainant by name one Sri. Akbarsab Ajmatsab Mulla, colluding with the petitioner and other accused persons, representing himself as the allottee of the site calling himself as Mohammadsab Azamatsab Mulla and impersonating the original allottee, executed a sale deed dated 208.2004, in favour of the present petitioner/accused No.1. On the basis of the said sale deed, the petitioner/accused No.1 got her name entered into City Survey records. Thereafter, the present respondent No.1/complainant lodged a private complaint against the present petitioner and other accused in the trial Court in P.C.No.77/2012, alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons have committed the alleged offences shown in the complaint. The complainant also prayed for referring the matter to the police for investigation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments while reiterating the contention taken up by the petitioner in her petition submitted that, there is inordinate delay of 8 years in lodging the private complaint. The sale deed executed in her favour is dated 22.08.2004, but the 1st respondent has lodged the complaint in the year 2012. He also alleged that the 1st respondent/complainant has kept quite till the death of his brother, who according to him has impersonated him and sold the disputed site property. It is only after the death of his brother, he has filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner also contented so also the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after purchase of the said property has given it to one Mahantesh Jamkhandi on lease, who was carrying on business on the said property, which is within the knowledge of the 1st respondent/complainant. As such also, the complainant has approached the trial Court belatedly.