IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2882 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI.S.REVANNA, S/O.LATE L.SUBRAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.134/184, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560079. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.DAYALU.K.N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.B.J.RANGANATH, S/O.SRI.R.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.17/9, HVR COMPLEX, SUBRAMANYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, OPP: CORPORATION COMMUNITY HALL, BENGALURU-560021.
2. SRI.R.JAYARAM, S/O.LATE H.V.RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.17/9, HVR COMPLEX, SUBRAMANYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, OPP:CORPORATION COMMUNITY HALL, BENGALURU-560021.
3. SRI.N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE, NO.121/3, BEHIND HOTEL RAJ, OM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, AVENUE ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560002.
(RESPONDENT NO.3 DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.05.2019) 4. K.S.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, NO.2837, 1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
(RESPONDENT NO.4 DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.05.2019). ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; V/O DATED 30.05.2019 R3 AND R4 ARE DELETED) ---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2015 PASSED ON I.A. U/S 91 OF CR.P.C. PASSED IN C.C.NO.2675/2014 ON THE FILE OF C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE THAT IS ANNEXURE-D BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on the application filed by petitioner/complainant under section 91 Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.2675/2014.
2. In a private complaint filed by petitioner under section 200 Cr.P.C., petitioner/complainant moved an application under section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking direction to respondent No.1/accused No.1 to produce the original Will.
3. The contention of petitioner is that the Will purported to have been executed by late R.Pushpalatha was a forged and fabricated Will.
4. In the complaint, it is averred that accused No.1 and accused No.2 are brother and father of complainant’s wife respectively. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are shown as witnesses to the forged and fabricated Will; accused No.4 is an Advocate who has identified the forged signatures of wife of complainant in the Will and accused No.5 is the Notary who has notarized the forged signatures on the fabricated documents in the absence of wife of complainant.
5. The averments made in the complaint go to show that the original Will was with the first accused. The prosecution of respondent No.1/accused No.1 is on the ground that the said Will was forged and fabricated by respondent No.1/accused No.1 and therefore, petitioner cannot compel respondent No.1/accused No.1 himself to produce the incriminating evidence in support of his case. It is also not known without original document being in his possession, on what basis petitioner has made allegation in the complaint that the alleged Will is forged and the Advocates have identified the forged signatures. Having regard to the contention urged by the petitioner, petitioner is required to lay a foundation to call for the original document. In the absence of any procedure having been followed and no foundation has been laid to summon the document under section 91 of Cr.P.C., the court below has rightly dismissed the application.
In view of the above discussion, petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of petition, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss