IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 16"' day of October, 2009
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G L'
Criminal Petition 5094? 2093 .; 2
Between:
1
R Narasimha Reddy, 26 yrs
S/O late Rarnaiah Redciy , »
R/a # 60, Rapena Agrahara Village '
Begur Hobii, MadiwaiaPO~st 'V '
Barlgalore
Nagappa'Redcfy S/O Mt1niya--nn2:1'V V
65 yrs, R/0 D_Odd§.[1lDgLlI::ViHHg§'T3: V 'V 'V
Begur HOb1i,:._BaI2g2i]OreVsOuth_ Taluk '
Barlgezlorff ' V " V' V
Petitioners
(By Sri C Hkladllav, ._A£§iv;)j-»
And:
.1
State Of Karnétaké -- by
_ v-Madif.v_a1aRvtPOIice S't'aiiOnV
' v_BangalO1teS0_uth
. Reddy s/o late Hanume Reddy
' . S'akaIavarsi'j_V15iiage, Iigani Hobli
'A__nekg:i Talrjk, Bangalore District
Respondents
'ij'f.__{B»y Sri Homgppa, GP for R1;
' SHE J Gpvindaraju, Adv. for R2.)
W
This Criminal Petition is filed under S.482 of the Cr.PC praying to
quash the investigation in Crime no.462/2008 of Madiwala Police___Station
against the petitioners. 7
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this_.d.a_y,»
made the following: if
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for quashing the p=roccediiigs”~pendin5t’i’before
the Civil Judge, Bangalore in Crime No.46;/20028-of Madi.fvala}}3’o–1i9e for the. C’
offence punishable for the offences underi’S ‘$06,? 120 B r/w
$.34, IPC. . V
According to the compl,ai–nant,’V he ‘of the property in
Sy.No.l measurtngiilifiggunttas”ofi”Rtz;3–ena Agrahara Village. As per the
petitioner, the c_oin:piain’ant”~had,_ iiexecuited a power of attorney and on the
strength of the povirer. ofattorney executed on 29.1 1.2007, he has sold the
piropertytini fayour’i’of 2″‘; petitioner. One Narasimha Reddy has filed a civil suit
for-..__injnnctiton”‘and declaration. Further proceedings have also been initiated
thereon,.__iiiCoinpla’int’fhas also been lodged by the respondent against the
,pet.itioners stating that he is well of and there is no need for selling the property
by creating a forged power of attorney, .1.” petitioner tried to knock of the
‘property. At this stage, parties are before this Coart.
W
Heard the counsef.
It is seen, case is still under investigation. It is rathervdifflctllt to
ascertain as to whether the compfainant has executed a powerof. ;1::o_m5y_ in
favour of the petitioner and it is a matter for investigation .a_nd”‘in.qu-i_r’y. ‘It tnaga u i
not be appropriate to interfere at this stage. ‘ .. .5’
Petition is accordingly, dism.isseCi.- _