The facts of the case is that the petitioner/accused No.2 is the son of deceased-accused No.1. The complainant had lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased- accused No.1 and therefore the present petitioner/accused No.2, sold 04 acres of land suppressing the very fact that 03 acres 07 guntas of land was been acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and only 33 guntas of land remained. It had been alleged that this petitioner alongside his deceased father deceived the complainant and sold the land.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 submitted that this petitioner/accused No.2 is merely one among the attesting witnesses to the sale deed and therefore the sale deed was accomplished by his father, and within the entire complaint there are not any precise allegations made against him except omnibus allegations. He further contended that the sale deed was of 1998 and therefore the refore the complaint was filed after 11 years and the ingredients of Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian penal code aren't attracted. He would submit that the matter is civil and therefore the petitioner/accused No.2 has not availed any civil remedy till today and now the available material doesn't disclose any material as against him to border the charge because the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC also are not attracted against him and there's no doubt of forgery because the sale deed is admitted.
The learned counsel for respondent resisted the petition on the bottom that the petitioner/accused No.2 is that the son of the deceased- accused No.1 and therefore the sale deed was executed jointly and he cannot plead his innocence and every one along he has actively participated within the transaction and cheated the complainant/respondent. it's further contended that the delay and other things haven't any relevancy at this juncture because the offense is punishable with quite three years and therefore the limitation act doesn't are available anyway.
The court held that it's an undisputed incontrovertible fact that the deceased father/accused No.1 was the owner of the. But the allegation is that he sold 04 acres of land in Sy.No.47/A to the complainant/ respondent. He had received the compensation regarding acquisition, but even then, by misleading the complainant/respondent cheated him by executing the sale deed, for 04 acres of land. it's also an self-proclaimed incontrovertible fact that this petitioner/accused No.2 being the son of the deceased-accused No.1 was a signatory to the sale deed, as a witness. Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings doesn't arise in the least , and both the courts below after appreciating the pieces of evidence have rejected the appliance filed by the petitioner/accused No.2. Hence, the petition is barren of any merits and wishes to be rejected.