IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9915/2017 Between:
Bharathraj.V.L., S/o.V.Lakshminarayan, Aged 43 years, Occupation: Business, Residing at No.285, 2nd Main Road, 3rd Phase, JP Nagar, Bengaluru-560 078. …Petitioner (By Sri. Madhav Kashyap, Adv., on behalf of Sri. Prasanna Kumar.P, Adv.,) And:
1. State of Karnataka, By Jigani Police Station, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dr.B.R.Ambedkarveedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Sh.Abhijit Kumar Padiwal, S/o. H.S.Neminathaiah, Aged major, Residing at No.107/58, 4th Main Road, G.P.Extn., Hanumanthnagar, Bengaluru-560 019. ... Respondents (By Sri. S.Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the investigation in Cr.No.43/2017 initiated by the 1st respondent police alleging commission of offence p/u/ss 406, 420, 471, 465, 465 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused in Crime No. 43/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections.406, 420. 471, 468, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Madhav Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prasanna Kumar for petitioner and learned HCGP, appearing for the State.
3. It is the contention of Mr. Madhav Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioner that complaint in question is a counter blast to the private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 03/04/2017 against second respondent herein and two other accused persons. He would also submit that dispute relates to an immovable property in respect of which several litigations are pending which has been initiated by the complainant i.e. second respondent herein in O.S.No.876/2014 against petitioner and also one Mr.Vishwanath M, and as such continuation of the present criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he has prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would support the case of prosecution.
5. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this court is of the firm view that it is not a fit case even for issuing notice to second respondent and it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated below.
6. As could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint which came to be filed by second respondent on 05.04.2017, same would disclose that complainant has narrated as to how he came in contact with petitioner namely, having been employed in M/s.Raj and Raj Constructions of which, petitioner – accused was the proprietor. He has further stated that he purchased a plot/site on 16.07.2003 from Nirman Shelters (B) Private Limited and father of petitioner was the Managing Director of the said company and he did not take back the sale deed as the petitioner was his employer and also on account of closeness with him. He further states that in the year 2014, he came to know that site purchased by him had been sold in favour of petitioner – accused through Power of Attorney Mr.Vishwanath M, whom he did not know and he being a fictitious person. Hence, contending that petitioner has played fraud by creating Power of Attorney as though same has been executed by the complainant in favour of Mr.Vishwanath, he has sought for suitable action being taken against petitioner.
7. While considering the prayer for quashing of proceedings, this Court would not examine correctness or otherwise of the contents of the complaint or allegations made therein. This Court would not also examine as to whether there is truth or otherwise in the said allegations made, inasmuch as, any opinion expressed in that regard would adversely prejudice the rights of the parties. Probable defence or plea the accused may take during the course of trial would also be not considered while examining the plea for quashing of proceedings. In the event of allegations made in the complaint would indicate the offence alleged, it would suffice to reject the prayer for quashing of proceedings.
8. In this background, when the complaint dated 05.04.2017 as already noticed herein above is examined, it would clearly indicate that offences alleged against petitioner are made out. Hence, it would not be apt and appropriate to interfere with the investigation at this stage. There is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.
In view of petition having been dismissed on merits, consideration of I.A.1/2017 does not arise and it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Msu