A petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be lodged through a power of attorney; however, the attorney must meet jurisdictional criteria with respect to the facts of the case.

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against her by respondent No.1 in C.C.No.6701/2019 pending trial before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatuga Road, Bangalore City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with 34 of IPC.

2. A private complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 herein in PCR No.10136/2018 alleging the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner and others. He alleged that the property bearing No.97 situated at TATA Silk Form, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru belonged to his father. He claimed that the petitioner herein and he were the two children who succeeded to aforesaid property, upon the death of their father on 18.10.2015. He alleged that the property was entrusted to accused No.2, who is the husband of the petitioner herein. He alleged that the accused Nos.1, 2 and the petitioner had colluded and entered into a Sale Agreement with accused No.4 in respect of which information was provided to the Basavanagudi Police Station who issued NCR No.144/2018 dated 17.07.2018. Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 2 had conspired and created a general Power of Attorney by forging his signature and on the basis of such a forged General Power of Attorney had executed an Agreement of Sale of the aforesaid property in favour of the accused No.4. He therefore, prayed that suitable action be initiated against the accused. The private complaint was referred for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1, 2 and the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 420B read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court took cognizance for the offences aforesaid and issued process to the petitioner and other accused. The petitioner was shown as absconding and hence the case was split up against her and C.C.No.29768/2019 was registered. The petitioner being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against her has filed this petition through her Power of Attorney.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a citizen and a permanent resident of Australia and she was not in India, when the incriminating General Power of Attorney dated 11.08.2017 was brought about. He submits that respondent No.2, who knew fully well that the petitioner was a citizen and resident of Australia had deliberately described her as a resident of Bengaluru. He submits that the Investigating Officer did not make any effort before filing a charge-sheet and showing petitioner as an absconder, to verify whether the petitioner was in Bengaluru when the alleged Power Attorney was brought about. He therefore contends that the prosecution vis-a-vis the petitioner is liable to be halted. He further contends that a perusal of the private complaint discloses that the allegations were primarily directed against accused No.2 and not against the petitioner. He contended that except the self serving statements which are part of the charge-sheet, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the alleged offences. He further contends that the Trial Court committed an error in issuing process to the petitioner without considering the fact that the petitioner was not a resident within the jurisdiction and therefore it was incumbent upon it to comply with the provision of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. He further contends that the alleged forged power of attorney was forwarded to a private forensic lab to investigate whether alleged fo