S.N. Satyanarayana, J.

1. The complainant in Crl. Misc. No. 25939/2013 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, has come up in this proceeding seeking to quash the order dated 04.11.2013 in rejecting the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and consequently modifying the conditions which were earlier imposed on the first respondent while considering his application for grant of anticipatory bail in Cri. Misc. No. 25449/2013 on the file of the FTC-III, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal petition under Section 482 read with Section439(2) of Cr.P.C. are as under:-

The second respondent is said to have filed a suit in O.S. No. 10743/92 for certain reliefs with reference to the property bearing No. 111/5 situated at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram, Bangalore. It is stated that in the said proceedings, she produced and relied upon a series of documents which were marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 26, (at this juncture the counsel appearing for the first respondent-accused would try to clarify that the survey number of the property involved is not Survey No. 111/5 but it is Survey Nos. 63 and 63/1 of Kowdenahalli. However, this Court is not concerned with the relevancy of the survey numbers but it is concerned with the alleged act of misrepresentation and impersonation said to have committed in collecting certain documents from the custody of the Court. Therefore, said clarification is irrelevant for considering the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C). It is stated that subsequently the said documents were removed from the custody of the Court by the first respondent with the assistance of one Nagaraj and another advocate by name Suresh by filing a false vakalath and forging signature of the second respondent and by impersonating her detrimental to her right in the suit schedule property in the said proceedings.

3. It is seen that a complaint with reference to that was initially lodged in Crime No. 323/2013 on 06.09.2010 with Ashok Nagar Police which was the subject-matter in Crl. P. No. 979/2012 before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein considering the technical objection with reference to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the said petition came to be allowed by quashing the complaint in Crime No. 323/2013. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that in the operative portion of the aforesaid order dated 26.09.2012, a specific observation was made by this Court as under:-

It is open for the second respondent to approach the concerned Court complaining the withdrawal of the documents in O.S. No. 10743/1992 by forging her signature. In such an event, the concerned Court shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Pursuant to which it is seen that the Officer of the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall lodged a complaint with Ashok Nagar Police in Crime No. 187/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. When the said complaint was under investigation, it is seen that the first respondent herein who is accused No. 3 in Crime No. 187/2013 filed a petition in Criminal Misc. No. 25449/2013 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed by an order dated 25.04.2013 in granting bail subject to following conditions:-

The petitioner is directed to appear before the IO and to co-operate with the Investigating agency.

The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

The petitioner shall produce his proof of residential address before the IO at the time of his appearance or at the time of his arrest whatever the case may be.

It is stated by the prosecution that several attempts were made by them to secure the presence of A-3, who is R-1 herein, which proved futile, many of the communications sent to him over telephone was ignored, all attempts to serve notice on him was thwarted and he has been eluding the police to receive the said notice. When the notice was ultimatel