Crl.P No.7/2009 ix) Bangalore Rural District, ._ Bangaiore--562 110. Respondents
(By Sri P M Nawaz, Addl. SPP, for respondent)
(By Sri V F Kumbar, Adv., for R-2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Setctic-_n
Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the’, proceedings’ ~ in
No.453/2008 (PCR No.21/2008) on the fiieaof Prl.’-Civiig Judge (Jr. Q:ivn.}
8:, JMFC, Devanahalii, in C C No.453/2003, in so far .asVV.igt_”‘_rei’atesi to the
petitioner. — ” «.
This Petition coming on for ‘A_ti’mis:.sio;;1 .i1.Z1’i1§’S’ ..cia”y_, the Court made
the following: ‘ * ” ” —
. onnsj-‘
The petitioner/ on the file of
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.l is before this Court
under Section 482 of it ititlfrgg.Co’Ci€W(;tf”~.Ci’5.II1i1’1al Procedure, praying for
quashing the crirninal iproee’eding3:l”
2. Learned Counsel for theipietitioner submits that he is the
bonafitie oi. the and he is not responsible for the
offences’ut1der”SeeCtions* 423, 467, 468 and 471 r/W Section 34
He that though there is no prima facie Case
maeiee.p_o’ut._by the plainant against the present petitioner, the learned
hastaken cognizance for the above–said offences against the
5
Cr].P No.7/2009
present petitioner, who is a purchaser of the property under the sale
deed.
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2/complainantiisubmitsii”
that the petitioner has not verified the title dieeds.:”aI.1:d thouglrr
make out that it was a land granted inlavour th-eVcorriipJ.ainaVnt3 and.)
he was very much alive, the petitioner has:pi,irc.hased’theiprojperty and
he was not a bonafide purchase1i–…_a*;1d _complainant has
filed a private complaint and thevAl,ea.rné rightly taken
cognizance for the iprejsent petitioner and
there is no illegality of 3′.l1fi:IT1;'{l,ity’ill1 theiiiimpugniediiiorder.
4. Admittedlljflnitlientpetitifoner’has purchased the land in question
from accused No.2! No.3 / Srnt. Bhagramma and
accused No.4] is most important in a criminal
case t_o”ho_ld 2}._ii]:;)erson is ‘responsible for the offence alleged against.
In theiiin.s’ta.nt because the petitioner has purchased the
he was responsible for the alleged offences.
There no prima “facie case made out as against the present petitioner
“theCourt erred in taking cognizance for the alleged offences
i i .aga.i’n.st– the present petitioner.
1
iv.
C111′ No.7/2009
5. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the proceedings
No.453/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) .
Devanahalli, as against the present petitioner, iJsmquashe’dj .. _/ ‘V
Bjs