Criminal Petition No. 11345/2013. Case: J. Prabhakar Rao and Ors. Vs Gilbert and Ors.. Karnataka High Court

Case Number:Criminal Petition No. 11345/2013
Party Name:J. Prabhakar Rao and Ors. Vs Gilbert and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: C.V. Angadi, Advocate and For Respondents: J.S. Shetty, Advocate
Judges:Budihal R.B., J.
Issue:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 200, 201, 202, 203; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 149, 420, 463, 464
Judgement Date:April 04, 2017
Court:Karnataka High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Budihal R.B., J.

  1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, and so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 2 - State.

  2. This is a petition filed by the petitioners-accused praying to quash the complaint, as per Annexure-A, filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Mundargi, in C.C. No. 145/2011 (P.C. No. 11/2008) under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the impugned order, as per Annexure-Q, dated 28.08.2013, passed in C.C. No. 145/2011 by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Mundaragi, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

  3. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that petitioner No. 1 was earlier serving as Bishop of Church of South India Trust Association ('the CSITA', for short). Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were former secretaries. The CSITA is registered and functioning under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The CSITA is the absolute owner and legal possessor of immovable property, including the lands in respect of which the compensation is received situated at Gumgol village, Mundaragi taluk, Gadag District. The said receipt of the compensation amount is questioned in the complaint. A private complaint came to be filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners herein and three others for the alleged offences under Section 463, 464, 420 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said private complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners, along with other remaining three accused, viz., the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Singatalur Irrigation Project, Huvinahadagali and the Tahasildar, Mundaragi Taluka, Mundaragi that based on the alleged forged documents the compensation amount of Rs. 63,36,428/- has been received by the petitioners. On the basis of the said complaint, now, the Trial Court has issued the summons to the petitioners herein and also the other accused persons.

  4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of his arguments, made the submission that there is no such fraud committed by the petitioners in receiving the compensation amount. He also made the submission that the judgment passed in R.S.A. No. 2030/2007 on 19.01.2009 clearly goes to show that it is the petitioners, who are the owners of the of the property, and hence, the complainant is not at...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL