IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8533/2015 BETWEEN:
SMT. J.B. MAHANANDA, W/O.J.B. BHARATH BHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 65/1, 15TH MAIN, J.B. KAVAL ROAD, DOLLARS SCHEME, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE-577001.
2. A.S.VEERANNA, S/O.A.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. 2480/1A, 9TH MAIN, MCC-A BLOCK, DAVANGERE-577 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; SRI.B.V.PINTO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRL. PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.238/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC III, DAVANAGERE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.2 in the charge sheet filed by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of PC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Perused the records.
4. According to the persecution, accused No.1 fabricated a GPA dated 30.4.1993 and on the strength of the said GPA, sold the subject property to accused No.2 on 7.5.1993. Accused No.2, in turn, sold the said property to accused No.3 on 5.6.2003. FIR came to be lodged, at the instance of the complainant on 30.6.2012 and after investigation, charge sheet is laid against accused Nos.1 to 3.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not disclose commission of alleged offence and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is legally untenable.
6. Though there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, yet, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has brought to the notice of the Court that after hearing the accused, charges were framed and accused did not chose to challenge the said charges, instead participated in the trial. The complainant has been examined before the trial Court as P.W.1. In the said circumstances, it is not proper to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the trial within six months from the date of communication of this order.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Cs/-
CT:RG Sd/- JUDGE