IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.538/2014 BETWEEN:
Mr. B.M. Karunesh, S/o. late B.M. Madaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.46, Palm Meadows, Varthur Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Amar Correa, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By HSR Layout Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 102.
2. Sri. Shankar Reddy, S/o. Late Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 35 years, R/o Harohalli, Magondi post, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District – 563 114. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri. M. Madhusudan, Advocate for Sri. V. Vishwanath Setty, Adv. for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR and Complaint in Crime No.441/2013 of respondent No.1 Police (HSR Layout P.S., Bengaluru), pending on the file of the VI Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465 and 468 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.8 in Crime No.441/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465 and 468 of I.P.C. Petitioner has sought to quash the registration of the said FIR and the consequent investigation taken up by respondent No.1.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
3. The criminal law was set in motion by respondent No.2 by lodging a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. In the complaint, the grievance made out by the complainant is that his maternal uncle Sri. Muni Reddy died on 20.04.1973. But, on 31.10.1977 a Sale Deed came to be registered before the SRO, Bengaluru North Taluk, as if Muni Reddy has transferred the schedule property to Veerappa Reddy, husband of accused No.1.
4. The allegations made against the petitioner is that accused Nos.1 to 7 in turn sold the aforesaid property in favour of petitioner/accused No.8 on 29.04.2003. There are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint attracting offences under Sections 419, 465 and 468 of IPC insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. The allegations attracting the aforesaid offences are directed only against accused Nos.1 to 7. Merely because the petitioner/accused No.8 purchased the aforesaid property from the erstwhile owner he cannot be accused of any of the above offences. It is not the case of the complainant that petitioner/accused No.8 was instrumental in fabricating the original Sale Deed of the year 1977.
Under the said circumstances, prosecution of the petitioner is wholly baseless, illegal, malafide and utter abuse of process of Court and cannot be allowed to be continued.
Consequently, petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.441/2013 is quashed only insofar as petitioner/accused No.8 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE SV