Rajasab S/O. Kahadarasab Nerebendhi vs Anjuri Mavallaiah S/O. Ramanna on 22 July, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rajasab S/O. Kahadarasab Nerebendhi vs Anjuri Mavallaiah S/O. Ramanna on 22 July, 2013

Bench: N. Ananda

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013
                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
           CRIMINAL PETITION No.10293/2012

BETWEEN:

RAJASAB S/O KAHDARASAB NEREBENCHI
AGE: 60 YRS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. HOSALLI ROAD-LAL BAHADDUR
SHASTRI NAGAR,
GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.         ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.M B GUNDAWADE, ADV. )

AND

ANJURI MAVALLAIAH S/O RAMANNA
AGE: 52 YRS, OCC : WASHARMAN
R/O. VENKATARAMAPURAM
PENUGONDA MANDAL
DIST: WEST GODVARI,
ANDRA PRADESH                         ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri.G M BHAT & MOHAN KUMAR M, ADVS.)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., SEEKING TO
QUASH ALL FUIRTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.291/2011 ON
THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, GANGAVATHI, AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2011 REGISTERING CASE
AGAINST PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES U/SS 465, 468 AND 471
R/W 34 IPC, AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO PETITIONER AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2




                          ORDER

The petitioner is arrayed as accused no.4 in C.C.No.291/2011 pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The petitioner and other accused are alleged to have forged the deed of power of attorney said to have been executed by one Anjuri Mavalli in favour of Mareppa, S/o Sanna Hussainappa to file a claim petition for compensation due to the death of son of said Anjuri Mavalli. The said Anjuri Mavalli (father of deceased) filed a claim petition before MACT at Rajamandri and learnt that said Mareppa had filed a claim petition before MACT at Gangavathi on the strength of alleged power of attorney executed by Anjuri Mavalli. It is alleged, the deed of power of attorney, on the basis of which claim petition was filed before MACT at Gangavathi, is a forged document.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an advocate and he had drafted the power of attorney as per the instructions given by Anjuri Mavalli. 3

4. It is seen from the records that Anjuri Mavalli had filed a claim petition before the MACT at Rajamandri. The insurance company had taken the contention that claimant had filed petition before the MACT at Gangavathi and received compensation.

On consideration of deed of power of attorney, I find that power of attorney was not only filed for prosecuting the case, but also for withdrawing compensation, if any, granted to claimant namely Anjuri Mavalli. The contents of copy of deed of power of attorney (alleged forged document) would justify initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner.

5. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. The petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE Np/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court