JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order, dated 18.11.2008, passed in S.R.No.2538 of 2008 (numbered as C.C.No.614 of 2008) on the file of the VIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/

complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the 1st respondent/accused. It is stated in the complaint that he is a resident of Gulbarga, Karnataka State. One Rasool Patel is his brother-in-law and in the month of November, 2007, his brother-in-law by virtue of oral gift, gave him a house bearing Door No.22-1-65, Jambagh, Sultanpura, Hyderabad and also handed over all the registered sale deeds and other relevant documents of the said property. After pronouncement of oral gift, the complainant took possession of the Flat and handed over keys to Md.Jabbar, who is a document writer, with an instruction to let out the Flat to a suitable tenant. Later, in the first week of April, 2008, he was informed by Md.Jabbar that lock of the said Flat was found broken and that some other persons, whose identity is not known to him, have been residing in that Flat. Soon after the receipt of that information, the complainant rushed to Hyderabad, caused enquiries and came to know that the accused had sold away the Flat on the basis of the Photostat copy of irrevocable Power of Attorney through registered sale deed bearing document No.223/2008, dated 05.02.2008, to one Younus Ali and in turn the said Younus Ali sold away the same to one Butool Begum under a registered sale deed vide document No.402/2008, dated 10.03.2008, and the said Butool Begum, in collusion with Syed Younus Ali, broke open the lock and trespassed into the Flat. The said Rasool Patel, while he was in Saudi Arabia in the month of March, 2007, executed a simple irrevocable General Power of Attorney duly attested by Consulate General of India at Jeddah in favour of the accused empowering him with all the powers and with an intention that the Flat be looked after by his agent and be let out to a suitable tenant. But, the accused with an intention to cause wrongful loss and taking advantage of the trust bestowed upon him, tampered the dates on General Power of Attorney and presented the same before the District Registrar, Hyderabad, for validation on 05.07.2007. After getting General Power of Attorney validated, he retained the Photostat copies of G.P.A. and handed over the said General Power of Attorney to Mohd.

Rasool Patel and also executed an instrument for cancellation of irrevocable Power of Attorney on 26.12.2007 at Gulbarga. When the complainant requested the accused to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of Syed Younus Ali, the accused denied to have executed any sale deed in favour of Younus Ali. Thus, the accused had committed an offence of cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust.

After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the material available on record, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said complaint for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the accused since there are prima facie ingredients for the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case stating that the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant would submit that the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. as the ingredients to constitute the said offences are made out by the prosecution. He also submits that as per the sworn statement of the complainant, the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are clearly established and, therefore, prayed to allow the revision.

Learned C