Execution of sale deeds does not amount to forgery without clear intent; civil disputes should not be framed as criminal complaints.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

Quashing the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the LVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-58), Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.25021/2015 and confirming the order of the trail court dated 29.11.2024 passed in PCR No.95/2010 in Crime No.12/2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore to transferred XLIII Add. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and quash the complaint in PCR No.95/2010 in Crime No.12/2011 by allowing the above petition in the interest of justice.

2. Respondent No.2-Major Thomas Xavier had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against one Sri.J. Balaraj, son of late R. Joseph and B. Vinod Kumar, son of Sri Balaraj who is the Petitioner herein, as also against Smt.Komala, wife of Mr. Ramesh who is respondent No.3 herein, alleging offences under Section 420 , 464, 467, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 18.06.2010.

3. The complainant alleged that he is the son of late V.T.Xavier, who had purchased site Nos.53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 under registered sale deed dated 17.03.1969, and in all, the above sites measure 209+205/2 x 60 feet. It is also contended that Sri.V.T.Xavier also purchased a small piece of land adjacent to site No. 52, measuring 7+11/2 x 60 feet under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1970. All of the above properties were purchased by Sri.V.T.Xavier from one Sri.R.Joseph, son of Sri.Rayappa, who is the grandfather of the Petitioner herein.

4. It is alleged that the complainant was working in the Army and retired as a Major in the year 1999 and after his retirement, he was working in a central government organisation. His father Sri.V.T.Xavier expired on 1.05.1995. After his death, the complainant and his brother Joseph Xavier succeeded to the above properties. Mr.Joseph Xavier, that is his brother, from his birth was very weak and had been afflicted with one ailment or the other and was totally dependent on the complainant. The complainant, not being in Bangalore for a long period of time, was not aware of the details of the purchases of properties made by Sri.V.T.Xavier, his father. His brother Joseph Xavier was not in a position to manage the affairs of the estate of the father due to his ill health. During this time, a portion of the property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority from Sri.V.T.Xavier.

5. It was further contended by the complainant that he was under the impression that the remaining property measuring 100 x 60 feet was a property purchased by his father adjacent to site No. 58/A, now standing in the name of the accused Nos.1 and 3, that is Mr.J.Balaraj (who is now deceased) and respondent No.3 herein.

6. It is further alleged that when the complainant was going through the old documents left behind by his late father, he noticed that the sites in occupation were not matching with the description of the property. Hence, a physical measurement was made, when to his shock, he found that there never existed any site bearing No. 58/A and on that basis, he came to a conclusion that site No. 58/A is part of the property purchased by his father Sri.V.T.Xavier. It is alleged that J.Balaraj taking undue advantage of the long absence of the complainant and the physical condition of his brother had got made a bogus katha and created imaginary site No. 58/A and sold the same to accused No.3, that is respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3 after purchasing site bearing No.58/A, is also stated to have sold a portion of same in favour of one Mrs.T.Thulasamma and on that basis it is alleged by the complainant that J.Balaraj (now deceased), the petitioner-Vinod Balaraj in collusion with respondent No.3-Komala have concocted, fabricated and sold the site bearing No.58/A in favour of respondent No.3 without any valid right or title.

7. It is further alleged that J. Balaraj has