Ujjal Bhuyan JUDGMENT
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 4998 of 2020 (Sri. Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the Appellant; the chargesheet in C.C. No. 116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur.
3. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The Appellant as the complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016 (referred to as 'the complaint' in the impugned order) alleging that Respondent No. 2 and Anr. were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the Appellant etc. for illegal gain. The said first information was received and registered by Haleebedu Police Station, Belur as Crime No. 323/2016 Under Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 149 and Section 34 thereof.
4. It may be mentioned that Respondent No. 2 is working as Village Accountant, Kirigdalu Circle in the district of Hassan, Karnataka State.
5. Respondent No. 2 filed a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing of the said FIR before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru ('High Court' for short). The same was registered as Criminal Petition No. 9580 of 2017.
5.1. The High Court in its order dated 05.01.2018 noted that the specific case of the Appellant was that land admeasuring 1 acre 13 guntas in survey No. 7/6 situated at Chattanahalli Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District belonged to the Appellant and his family members. The same was given to Accused No. 1 for the purpose of cultivation. Accused No. 1 in collusion with revenue officials including Accused No. 2 (Respondent No. 2 herein) created lot of fake documents in favour of Respondent No. 1. High Court vide the order dated 05.01.2018 observed that there were specific and serious allegations against Respondent No. 2 even as to creation of death certificate of a living person. It was observed that a reading of the FIR made out a case for investigation and that it was too prematu........