IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIM1NA[ PETITON No.8142/2010 BETWEEN: K.M.Veeresh, S! K.M.Sharnnayya, Age: 62 years, 0cc: Secretary-Bapuji Institute of Disabled, Rio. H.No.13, Vellikeranhalli, Di St. Chitradurga. .. . Petitioner (By Shri. Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka. Dharwad Town Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building. Bangalore — 560 001. 2. Sudhindra. S!o. Ram Rao Desai. Age: 43 years, 0cc: Agriculturist, Rio. Dharwad, Dist. Dharwad. .. . Respondents (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Dharwad in C,C.No.624/2005 in so far as petitioner is concerned. This petition coming on for admission this day. the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Respondent No.1 herein had filed a private complaint to allege that the petitioner and other accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that one Srinivas Desai had sold agricultural land bearing Survey No. 106/2 of Saptapur village, in favour of the petitioner acting as Administrator of the Murgandra Vidyapeth Brarnhanamath, under a registered sale deed dated 25.07.2001, violating an interim order granted by the Court of III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharwad in a pending original suit in O.S.No.60/1999. It is contended that the present petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value and in that background there could be no criminal case alleged against the petitioner. However, the complainant having lodged the complaint, the Dharwad Police had investigated the same and had filed a “B” final report to state that a case was made out against respondent No.2. in response, respondent No.2 filed his protest petition against the petitioner and Magistrate, thereafter, having taken cognizance have recorded his own statement in protest petition and held that there was a prima facie to take cognizance and by order dated 21.10.2005 issued process against the petitioner. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that there was a family partition in the year 1984 between the grandfather of respondent No.2 and the father of the accused No.4, who were descendents of one Hanurnanth Rao. Wife of respondent No.2, had therefore, filed a civil suit above referred seeking partition and separate possession. Respondent No.2 who is arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said suit has pleaded that the agricultural land in question did not belong to him and the same had fallen 4 to the share of the petitioner at the family partition. This being the stand in the civil suit The very falsity of the complaint of respondent No.2 and the accused No.4 having sold the land to the petitioner. ft is further stated that the complainant has also impleaded accused No.4 as defendant No.7 in the said suit 4. In this background, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 in order to defeat the legitimate rights of accused No.4, in order to humiliate the said accused and the petitioner had lodged the false complaint and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Having regard to the involved facts of the case, it is appropriate that the petitioner make out a case for discharge before the Court of Magistrate, in which the proceedings are pending. It is not proper for this Court to intervene in matters such as the above and to sift the material on record to accept the case ofthe petitioner. 6. Hence, without prejudice to the case of the petitioner to make out a case for discharge before the S 5 Magistrate at the appropriate time. the present petition is disposed oC Sd! JUDGE Rsh