H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.34/1995, before the Senior Civil Judge Court Gokak, for partition and separate possession and obtained a decree for their 1/5th share each in respect of the family properties. The allegation made in the complaint is that respondents have hatched a plan to deprive the complainants from their share in the said properties and created a documents which is styled as consent letter or kabuli patra by forging and fabricating the signatures of the complainants though the complainant have not at all executed the said alleged kabuli patra before any notary advocate. But all the accused including this petitioner have indulged in creating and concocting the document and produced the same before the revenue authorities and got the name of complainants deleted from the revenue records. Therefore, the said complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raibag.

3. The