ORDER :

Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition has been filed by petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 challenging the order passed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.No.588/2018 dated 29.11.2018.

3. I have heard Sri.Jayakumar.S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Mohammed Tahir.A., learned counsel for petitioners-accused and Sri.Rajadithya Sadashivan, learned counsel for respondent No.1- complainant. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 10 is dispensed with vide order dated 29.05.2019.

4. The case of the respondent No.1/complainant before the Court below is that, he filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein and other accused persons alleging that complainant held a fixed deposit along with his father in State Bank of Mysore, Chamarajpet Branch from 16.7.1996. As and when the fixed deposit matured, the maturity value would be rolled over and new fixed deposit receipt used to be issued. The payment of initial FD and every subsequent roller over FD was “either or survivor”. All the FD receipts and interest certificates stood only in the name of complainant and his father G.Parthasarathy. All the F.D. receipts were surrendered for issuance of fresh rolled over F.D. and they were with State Bank of Mysore. The F.D. receipt dated 12.3.2009 for Rs.8,91,094/- was issued for a period of 24 months and in the said FD, TDS was wrongly deducted. After noticing the same, the complainant through his G.P.A. holder i.e., his father issued a letter dated 24.6.2009 to State Bank of Mysore and the said Bank issued fresh F.D. dated 24.6.2009, after adding the TDS, for an amount of Rs.9,19,863/-. The said FD was also on ‘either or survivor’ and was jointly held by complainant and his father. Subsequently, in view of death of father of the complainant on 16.7.2011, the complainant having become the absolute owner of the said F.Ds., the State Bank of Mysore shall take instruction only from the petitioner in respect of the said FDS held by the petitioner and his father. But accused Nos.4 to 8, upon death of complainant’s father have fraudulently taken away the original FD receipt. Being unaware of the said fact, complainant issued a letter dated 28.9.2011 to the State Bank of Mysore informing the death of his father and also contending that the original FD was misplaced and requested to issue fresh FD receipt in the name of the complainant. Upon enquiry, the complainant was shocked to notice that the Bank had preclosed the FD without any instructions from the complainant and disbursed the said amount to accused Nos.4 to 8. As such, a private complaint has been filed. However, the said private complaint came to be dismissed on 9.12.2016 before appearance of the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.997/2016 before the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. By order dated 31.5.2017, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners herein, the order dated 9.12.2016 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the same afresh. Further, by order dated 4.4.2018 the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, complainant preferred Crl.R.P.No.588/2018 wherein by order dated 29.11.2018, the revision petition was allowed and the order of learned Magistrate was set aside and the complaint was restored to its original stage with direction to proceed by issuing process to the respondents and thereafter dispose of the matter. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court.

5. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said complaint is baseless, imaginary and concocted. The lower appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the criminal revision petition without provi