ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 29/2016

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the de-facto complainant under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [the Cr.P.C] challenging the order of discharge of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, vide order dated 26.08.2015, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 423 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [theI.P.C ]passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, 3 the Trial Court

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 IN THE DISCHARGE PETITION:

2. For better and effective understating of the gamut of the dispute, it is apposite to summarize at first the contentions of the Accused and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 under this factual matrix head. The Station House Officer, V Town Police Station, Nellore [the Investigating Officer], filed a charge sheet under Section 173 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ against the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423 and 468 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in Crime No.222 of 2005, which was registered on the basis of the report lodged by Pathapati Pera Reddy/de-facto complainant, wherein it was alleged that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 executed sale deeds in respect of Plot Nos.1, 1A, 2 and 4 in Sy.No.52/24 to Pratap Kumar, I.Supriya, Vommina Eswara Manoj Kumar and P.Rishita respectively, though they had no right and title over the property.

3. Under the authority of a General Power of Attorney document bearing No.509 of 2005, by which Potti Vijayalakshmi appointed the de-facto complainant as her GPA in respect of plot Nos.1, 1A, 2 and 4. Dwaraka Real Estate was a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated 26.09.1984 comprising seventeen partners. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were partner Nos.10, 11 and 5 in the partnership deed. The de-facto complainant further alleged that Dwaraka Real Estates had appointed partner No.6/D.Lakshmi Narayana, partner No.7/P.Sesha Reddy and partner No.15/P.Badri Narayana Rao as GPA holders to deal with partnership properties under GPA dated 25.03.1985 vide document No.91/1985. It is further alleged that, except for those three persons no others had any authority to deal with the properties of partnership firm. After the demise of Kannaiah, partner No.16, partnership was reconstituted under the partnership deed dated 12.11.1988 comprising of the remaining sixteen partners. Thus, the GPA dated 25.03.1985 lapsed on 11.11.1988. Thereafter partner Nos.6, 7 and 15 had no authority to deal with the partnership properties in view of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, [theAct]

4. It is further contended that on perusal of the FIR, case diary, and statements, no case was made out against Respondent Nos.2 to 4.A legal notice dated 16.05.2003 was issued by S.V.Sarma, Senior Advocate to the three partners namely D.Lakshmi Narayana, P.Sesha Reddy and P.Badri Narayana Rao stating that the authority to deal on behalf of the firm had lapsed with the death of Kannaiah. Therefore, no prima facie case was made against Respondent Nos.2 to 4. It was contended that based on the averments of the FIR, case diary, and statements, and in view of the legal position, the entire dispute was civil in nature. As per Article 4 of the said partnership deed, the firm had fixed a tenure. The duration of the said partnership deed was from 12.11.1988 to 30.06.1999 and thereafter, the partnership was deemed to have been dissolved.

5. R.Srinivasulu, instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.446 of 2005 on the file of the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore against the remaining 16 partners including Dwaraka Real Estates, seeking rendition of accounts, and the said civil suit had been pending for adjudication, and the matter was thus sub-judice.

6. The alleged GPA holders, D.Lakshmi Narayana, P.Sesha Reddy had also pleaded that the partnership had become defunct on 09.11.1989 and the GPA was terminated by the death of Kannaiah on 11.11