Crl.R.P.No.1076/2011

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1076/2011

BETWEEN:

SMT. PRAMILA MEHRA

W/O. SRI PRAMOD MEHRA

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

R/AT NO.124, X CROSS

INDIRANAGAR, I STAGE

BENGALURU-560 038 …PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.M.ASHOKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. YOGESH KAPOOR

S/O. SRI RAM MURTHY KAPOOR

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

2. VIKRANT KAPOOR

S/O. SRI RAM MURTHY KAPOOR

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R1 & R2 ARE R/AT

NO.212/56, AJNAL ROAD

JULHAR SINGH AVENUE

GALLI NO.-4, OPP. GURUDWAR

GUMTALA LINK ROAD

AMRITSAR, PUNJAB-143 001

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION

BENGALURU-560 038

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI C.R.ABDUL RASHEED, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R3)

Crl.R.P.No.1076/2011

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2011 PASSED BY III

ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU

IN C.C.NO.8275/2001.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN

HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10^TH DAY OF

DECEMBER 2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order of III Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8275/2001

discharging accused Nos.1 and 3 from taking up trial, the

petitioner has preferred the above revision petition.

2.

The

petitioner

was

the

complainant

and

respondent Nos.1 and 2 were accused Nos.1 and 3 in

C.C.No.8275/2001 on the file of III Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. For the purpose of

convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth with

their ranks before the trial Court.

3.

The complainant is the sister of accused Nos.1,

3 and accused No.2 Vikas Kapoor. They inherited a house

named Ranjitha Avenue situated in Amritsar, Punjab from

their parents. On 20.09.1997, the complainant executed

Crl.R.P.No.1076/2011

3

registered General Power of Attorney in Bengaluru in

favour of accused Nos.1 to 3 to manage, develop and

alienate the said property. Accused sold the said property

to one Madhusharma under the registered sale deed dated

29.10.1997. The sale consideration quoted in the sale deed

was Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The complainant filed complaint under Section

200 of Cr.P.C. in PCR No.156/2000 before the trial Court

against the accused alleging that on obtaining General

Power of Attorney without her knowledge and consent they

sold the property for consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-. She

further alleged that the accused suppressed the said fact

of sale with the dishonest intention to deprive her share in

the said property. She claimed that on learning about the

same, she issued notice dated 25.11.1999 demanding her

share of Rs.9,00,000/- (1/4^th share) which was not

complied, thereby the accused have committed the

offences punishable under Section 403 and 120 of IPC.

5. The trial Court acting under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. referred the said complaint to Indiranagar police

for

investigation.

The

said

police

on

investigation

Crl.R.P.No.1076/2011

4

submitted ‘B’ report to the Court stating that the matter is

in the nature of civil dispute. The complainant filed protest

petition to the ‘B’ report. The trial Court on recording the

sworn statement of the complainant and on hearing the

complainant, by order dated 10.09.2001 took