IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Criminal Petition No.316 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT.A.T.KUMARI, W/O A.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.315, O.M.B.R. LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABANASAWADI, NEAR C.M.R.COLLEGE, BANGALORE – 560 033.
(BY SRI.KASHINATH J.D., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 0001.
2. SRI.P.N.MURTHY, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DEPUTY SECRETARY – 4, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, ... PETITIONER KUMARAPARK WEST, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE – 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.16363/2013 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC AND ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN C.C.NO.16363/2013 ON THE FILE OF 56TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE AS ILLEGAL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri.Kashinath J.D, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.
2. Petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and said proceedings are now pending in CC No.16363/2013 on the file of 56th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. Perusal of records would disclose that an application came to be submitted by petitioner for allotment of a site by Bengaluru Development Authority declaring her income at `3,100/- per month. Pursuant to same, allotment of site has been made and later on lease-cum-sale agreement is also executed and possession has been handed over.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner had given false declaration with regard to her income. Though petitioner was working as a Poura Karmike in BBMP and on the date of application, she was drawing salary of `6712.20 paise, which fact had been suppressed and this was with an intention to cheat the Bengaluru Development Authority. Hence, alleging that petitioner had given false information and got allotted site complainant has been lodged which resulted in proceedings in question being initiated.
5. On the basis of the complaint so lodged by BDA, jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.176/2013 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in CC No.16363/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
6. It is the contention of Sri.Kashinath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner though application was submitted declaring her income as `3,100/-, BDA has allotted a site under a different Rule and as such, prosecution cannot rely upon said application to allege that petitioner had committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC.
7. Probable defence of the accused would not be a matter of consideration in a proceedings for quashing of the charge sheet or First Information Report. Probable defence, if any, has to be placed by the accused before jurisdictional Court for being adjudicated, after such evidence being tendered.
In that view of matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE GH