MIRLE VARADARAJ Vs. STATE BY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.31184/2011 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 190(A) read with Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to refer the case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Inspector of Police, Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station to investigate and to submit a report and to take cognizance in the matter. The Private Complaint is numbered as C.C.No.31184/2011. On the basis of the Order dated 03.10.2011 in C.C.No.31184/2011, the 1st respondent Rajarajeshwarinagar Police have filed F.I.R. before the learned Magistrate. As per the order of the learned Magistrate, the Authorities of Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station commenced investigation and referred the signatures to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madivala, Bangalore City for investigation and report. Accordingly, the said Laboratory sent a report on 27.04.2011, wherein it is made clear that the opinion on questioned signatures marked as Q-12, Q-13, Q-16 and Q-17 is reserved for the want of admitted signatures of the concerned persons and further opined that it has not been possible to express opinion on questioned signatures as Q-14 and Q-15, since the standard signatures are not consistence to one and another. The 2nd respondent has alleged that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.42/4, measuring 26 Guntas of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having purchased the same from its previous owners Smt.Hanumakka and Others for consideration. It is further alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have created a forged General Power of Attorney in respect of the property in question, as if the 2nd respondent executed the General Power of Attorney dated 005.2007 in favour of petitioner No. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioners herein have committed the alleged offence as mentioned in the private complaint and in the charge sheet.

(3.) Heard the arguments of Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners on record, learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.