Point of Law: Section 465 of IPC deals with punishment for forgery.

ORDER :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.132 of 2020 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.219 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), (p), (r), (s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3. The 2nd respondent is the son of one late V.Krishnamurthy. Late V.Krishnamurthy and V.Muniyappa are sons of one A.K. Venkatappa. During the life time of V.Muniyappa and V.Krishnamurthy they had purchased several properties in their joint names. One such property is the subject property. After purchase of several properties, they got the lands converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes on 15-07-1970 and later registered a partition deed on 07-06-1974 entering into partition of properties that they had jointly owned. Several of the properties fell to the share of V.Krishnamurthy, father of the complainant. On 20-07-1988 a sale deed comes to be registered by V.Muniyappa and V.Krishnamurthy as joint vendors of one of the subject properties in favour of the father of the petitioners. Pursuant to the sale deed, the father of the petitioners became the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Certain other sites that were in the name of the father of the complainant and V.Muniyappa had also become a subject matter of sale deeds executed in favour of the father of the petitioners at intermittent intervals. Those sale deeds dated 18-02-1993 and 30-10-2002 were executed by the power of attorney holder of V.Muniyappa and V.Krishnamurthy. The properties purchased by the father of the petitioners measuring 14,100 sq.ft. and the properties that were held by the children of V.Muniyappa and V.Krishnamurthy abut each other.

3. The father of the petitioners, in the property purchased by him as aforesaid, established a timber business in the name and style of J.K.Timber Traders after claiming to have taken all necessary approvals from the statutory authorities. After the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners have inherited all his properties. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent/ complainant claiming interest over the sites in question files a suit in O.S.No.429 of 2015 against one Smt. Saraswathi, the petitioners and others seeking a relief of partition and separate possession in respect of certain sites mentioned in the plaint. Those were the very sites that complainant’s father V.Krishnamurthy and his uncle V.Muniyappa sold by executing certain sale deeds in favour of the father of the petitioners. In the said suit an application was filed by the complainant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction not to alienate or create any charge over the properties. Written statement was filed by the petitioners and the matter is pending consideration before the competent civil Court.

4. On an allegation that the complainant is trying to continuously harass the petitioners by interference with their peaceful possession, the petitioners register an independent suit in O.S.No.442 of 2018 seeking injunction against the complainant. The concerned Court orders temporary injunction injuncting interference by the complainant with the properties belonging to the petitioners. The complainant did not stop at that. It is then the petitioners file a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 23-01-2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 427, 448 and 506 of the IPC in Crime No.38 of 2018. The Police conduct investigation, file a charge sheet against the complainant on 10.05.2018 and the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences against