SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6290

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
SMT V K BHARATHI – Appellant
Versus
SMT V GAYATHRIDEVI – Respondent


Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that

respondent No.1-complainant is no more. Submission is placed

on record.

2.

Respondent No.1 had filed a private compliant under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused created an

agreement of sale dated 6.11.2008 by forging her signature and

also executed two registered sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar

concerned by impersonation. The complainant to substantiate

the allegations filed a sworn affidavit reiterating the contents of

the complaint.

3.

The learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint

averments, the sworn affidavit and certified copy of the

agreement of sale dated 6.11.2008 and also the sale deed dated

5

6.11.2008 passed an order holding that, the complainant has

made out a prima facie case to register the case against the

accused and accordingly registered the case against the accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420,

421, 423, 424, 465, 466, 467, 468,469,471 and Sec.195,

195(A), 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204 and 506 (B) of IPC.

Taking exception to the same, accused No.2 is before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

cognizance taken by the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top