ORDER :

K.S. Mudagal, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No. 8275/2001 discharging accused Nos. 1 and 3 from taking up trial, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition.

2. The petitioner was the complainant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No. 8275/2001 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The complainant is the sister of accused Nos. 1, 3 and accused No. 2 Vikas Kapoor. They inherited a house named Ranjitha Avenue situated in Amritsar, Punjab from their parents. On 20.09.1997, the complainant executed registered General Power of Attorney in Bengaluru in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 3 to manage, develop and alienate the said property. Accused sold the said property to one Madhusharma under the registered sale deed dated 29.10.1997. The sale consideration quoted in the sale deed was Rs. 3,00,000/-.

4. The complainant filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in PCR No. 156/2000 before the trial Court against the accused alleging that on obtaining General Power of Attorney without her knowledge and consent they sold the property for consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/-. She further alleged that the accused suppressed the said fact of sale with the dishonest intention to deprive her share in the said property. She claimed that on learning about the same, she issued notice dated 25.11.1999 demanding her share of Rs. 9,00,000/- (1/4th share) which was not complied, thereby the accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 403 and 120 of IPC.

5. The trial Court acting under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referred the said complaint to Indiranagar police for investigation. The said police on investigation submitted 'B' report to the Court stating that the matter is in the nature of civil dispute. The complainant filed protest petition to the 'B' report. The trial Court on recording the sworn statement of the complainant and on hearing the complainant, by order dated 10.09.2001 took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 403 of IPC, registered the case in C.C. No. 8275/2001 and summoned accused Nos. 1 to 3.

6. Pending the complaint, accused No. 2 Vikas Kapoor died. Therefore, the case against him was abated. Since the case was registered otherwise than on the police report, on appearance of the accused, the trial Court posted the matter to hear before charge and recorded the evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. On hearing the parties, the trial Court by order dated 13.10.2008 accepted the 'B' report exercising the power under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint.

7. The complainant challenged the said order in Crl. R.P. No. 561/2008 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-VI, Bengaluru City. The Sessions Court by order dated 17.12.2009 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 13.10.2008 on the ground that after taking cognizance of offences, the trial Court cannot dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

8. After such remand, the complainant adopted the evidence led by her prior the order dated 13.10.2008. At that stage, accused filed application under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and only the Court at Amritsar have the jurisdiction to try the case. The complainant filed objections to the said application.

9. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 allowed the application and discharged the accused on the following grounds:

(i) The General Power of Attorney relied on by the complainant does not contain clause regarding sharing of the sale proceeds and does not state that the complainant has share in the sale proc