Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 135 (KAR)

PRAHAKAR v. K. VASUDEVA MURTHY

2001-02-13

K.R.PRASADA RAO

body2001
PRASADA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by the petitioners, who are Accused Nos. 1 to 8 in CC. 434/98 on the file of JMFC (II court), Davanagere, seeking for quashing the above case registered against them for the offences under Sections 405, 406, 40,9, 415, 417, 418, 419, 423 IPC and Section 71 of Indian Registration Act (for Short the 'act') ( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the complaint in the trial Court against thepetitioners for the above said offences. Learned Magistrate has taken congnisance of the above said offences and after recording sworn statement of the complainant, ordered for registering the case against the petitioners for the above referred offences. It is at this stage, petitioners approached this Court for quashing the above proceedings pending against them. ( 3 ) IT is seen from the facts alleged in the complainant thatpetitioner No. 5, S. R. Jagadeeswara Reddy, who is the owner of some sites executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one R. L prabhakar on 20. 9. 1991 authorising him to execute the registered sale deeds in favour of some purchasers of sites bearing Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 each measuring 30' x 40'. Subsequently, he cancelled the said General Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of R. L. Prabhakar by a registered cancellation deed dated 6. 2. 1997 since R. L. Prabhakar did not carry out the instructions given by him. Thereafter, petitioner No. 5 informed R. L. Prabhakar about the cancellation of the said General Power of Attorney and executed another General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No. 4 M. H. Virupaksha. Thereafter, petitioner No. 4 presented the sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar, Davanagere, for registration and the said sale deeds were registered by the Sub-Registrar on 27. 2. 1997. On the same day, sale deeds presented by R. L. Prabhakar for registration were not registered by the Sub-Registrar, since the general Power of Attorney executed in favour of R. L. Prabhakar was cancelled by petitioner No. 5 by a registered cancellation deed dated 6. 2. 1997. 2. 1997. On the same day, sale deeds presented by R. L. Prabhakar for registration were not registered by the Sub-Registrar, since the general Power of Attorney executed in favour of R. L. Prabhakar was cancelled by petitioner No. 5 by a registered cancellation deed dated 6. 2. 1997. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondentthat there is no valid cancellation of the General Power of Attorney executed by petitioner No. 5 in favour of R. L. Prabhakar and the sub-Registrar/petitioner No. 6 had deliberately not registered the sale deeds presented by R. L. Prabhakar though they were presented much earlier to the time when the other sale deeds were presented by petitioner No. 4 for registration and not passed any reasoned order for not registering the sale deeds presented by R. L. Prabhakar. He therefore, submitted that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against all the petitioners for the above said offences. But, I am unable to accept the above contention for the simple reason that the Sub-Registrar found out that the power of attorney executed in favour of R. L. Prabhakar by petitioner No. 5 has been cancelled under a registered cancellation deed dated 6. 2. 1997 which was registered in the same office of the Sub-Registrar, Davanagere. He further found out that subsequent to cancellation of the said power of attorney, petitioner No. 5 has executed another power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 4. Under these circumstances, the Sub- registrar was satisfied that the sale deeds presented by petitioner no. 4 alone can be registered as he alone has the authority to present the said documents for registration on behalf of the owner petitioner No. 5. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to these facts, it cannot be said that thepetitioners have not acted in a bonafide manner. On the other hand, the above facts clearly disclosed that there are absolutely no grounds to proceed against the petitioners for any of the above offences referred in the complaint. In my view, the complaint filed is clearly an abuse of process of Court and the learned Magistrate was not justified in registering the case against the petitioners for the above said offences. There are absolutely no grounds to proceed against the petitioners for any of the above said offences. In my view, the complaint filed is clearly an abuse of process of Court and the learned Magistrate was not justified in registering the case against the petitioners for the above said offences. There are absolutely no grounds to proceed against the petitioners for any of the above said offences. ( 6 ) THIS petition is therefore, allowed and the above proceedingspending in CC. 434/98 on the file of the Court of JMFC, II Court, davanagere, are hereby quashed. However, it is clarified that the question whether there is valid cancellation of the power of attorney executed in favour of R. L. Prabhakar by petitioner No. 5 is kept open to be decided by the Civil Court. --- *** --- .