IMPORTANT POINT
The Magistrate must apply judicial mind when taking cognizance and issuing summons, ensuring sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case.

ORDER :

The petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 8 are before this Court seeking quashment of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent dated 02-01-2023 and charge sheet dated 16-03-2024 and have also sought setting aside the order dated 04-04-2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in C.C.No.2600 of 2024 arising out of crime in Crime No.3 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioners had knocked at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1372 of 2023 dated 16-06-2023, which comes to be dismissed holding that the investigation in the case at hand was imperative. Therefore, it would suffice if the facts as narrated therein are paraphrased to the subject order. This Court noticed the facts and considering those facts has held as follows:

"2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant and petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 3 to 8. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioners and another by the 2nd respondent on 02-01-2023 alleging that the petitioners have all connived, forged the signatures of the complainant and got several sale deeds registered. A brief history to the complaint as narrated is that on 04-12-2014 a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’ for short) comes to be executed between the 2nd respondent/Ankamma Rao with M/s Mahidhara Projects Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short), a Company registered under the Companies Act. The Company later, on the strength of JDA develops a layout in the name and style of ‘Mahidhara Fortune City’ after obtaining all necessary permissions from Anekal Development Authority. The complainant further narrates that he along with other owners of properties subsequently entered into a partition to partition the remaining sites after the disposal, which fell to the individual shares under the deed of partition dated 2-03-2021.

3. Thirteen properties are identified to be the subject matter of the complaint, as in terms of the JDA and the sharing agreement as well as the partition deed, the properties ought to have been in the share of the owner/complainant. The owner in order to secure loan from SBICAP, by way of depositing of title deeds, has mortgaged those 13 sites in favour of SBICAP and has secured finance. After the said act, the complainant comes to know that sale deeds are executed of those 13 properties which are the subject matter of loan that was secured from SBICAP on depositing of title deeds. The properties were sold by the Special Power of Attorney 1st Holder one Chikka Kondappa, an employee of the petitioner without consent, knowledge, authorization and by forging the signatures of the owner of the properties and without even mentioning the mode of payment. It is, therefore, alleged that the 1st petitioner who is one of the Directors of Bhoomika Infrabuild Private Limited along with his children and other accused have all connived and conspired to cheat the complainant. Therefore, the complainant seeks to register the complaint on 02-01-2023. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences aforementioned. Soon after registration of crime, the petitioners knocked at the doors of this Court with the present petition and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 17-02-2023 stayed further investigation into the matter. The interim order is subsisting even as on date.

4. Heard Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel ap