Annarao @ A.G. Patil vs Dayanand

Ravi Malimath, J.—The respondent filed a private complaint contending that he was owner in possession of land which was acquired by the Government for the purpose of JBC canal work. The Government awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,420/-. The said land was jointly in the name of the respondent and his brother. An affidavit was sworn by his brother and submitted before the Land Acquisition Office declaring that the said compensation shall be disbursed in his favour. In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the brother of the respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 30,420/- and the said amount was withdrawn by one Sidramappa who happens to be his brother''s son. For the said act, the complainant/respondent alleged that the petitioner and others conspired together and thereafter facilitated the said Sidramappa to receive the compensation amount by cheating him. On these facts, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him.

The petitioner contends that the averments in the complaint is against one Siddramappa who has affixed his signature and received the compensation. He further contends that accused Nos. 2 to 5 namely LAO, Advocate, SDA and FDA and another filed Crl. P. No. 8930/2009 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 13.11.2009 allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein with reference to the very same crime number. Hence, the present petition be allowed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

On considering the contentions and the facts, I'' am of the considered view that it is a fit case wherein the proceedings require to be quashed. The prosecution has failed to establish any case against the petitioner. The petitioner is an advocate and notary and on identification has notarized the document. On the very same allegations proceedings were quashed against accused Nos. 2 to 5, who were LAO, advocate, FDA and SDA, on the ground that they performed their respective duties and they cannot be held to the part of cheating the complainant. In view of the finding recorded by this Court referred to above, it would be improper to take a different view. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 175/2009 on the file of JMFC Court, Shahapur stands quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Ordered accordingly.