A trial court must assess whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding with charges, without conducting a mini trial, and a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability.

ORDER :

S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is filed by the defacto complainant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Court of LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.471 of 2021.

2. Respondent no.1 herein was charge sheeted by CKA Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 204, 466, 473, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.470 of 2017. After the charge sheet was filed, the case was numbered in C.C.No.24859 of 2018 before the Court of I ACMM, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, respondent no.1 had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge, which was rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.1 had preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.471 of 2021 before the Court of LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was allowed by order dated 25.03.2023 and assailing the same, the defacto complainant is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that charge sheet material makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner for standing trial for the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate was therefore justified in rejecting the discharge application filed by the accused. The Revisional Court has erred in allowing the revision petition on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the parties.

4. Per contra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent no.1 submits that Power of attorney has been executed on 25.03.2011 only for the purpose of rectifying the defect in the release deed and correction of a boundary of the property. Rectification deed was executed on the strength of the power of attorney on 16.06.2011. After a civil dispute arose between the parties, belatedly a false complaint has been filed. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM PRAKASH CHADHA V. STATE Of UTTAR PRADESH - in (2024) 10 SCC 651 and DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL V. STATE Of GUJARAT & ANOTHER - (2019) 16 SCC 547 in support of his arguments.

5. Learned HCGP for respondent no.2 however has argued in support of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and submits that the Revisional Court was not justified in allowing the discharge application. He submits that the notary has clearly stated that the seal and signature found in the General Power of Attorney does not belong to him, which prima facie makes out a case as against the accused. He also submits that accused who had undertaken to produce the original of the General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.2011 had subsequently not cooperated before the police for which an adverse inference has to be drawn against him.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner herein is the direct brother of respondent no.1. It appears that release deed was executed between the two brothers and their mother on 03.06.2009. The alleged power of attorney dated 25.03.2011 was executed by the petitioner herein in favour of his mother for the purpose of correction of the boundary of the property which was allotted to respondent no. 1 herein under the release deed dated 03.06.2009. According to the petitioner, the said power of attorney dated 25.03.2011 is a forged and fraudulent document and he had never executed such a document. The alleged general power of attorney is not a registered document. Bu