IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4912/2019 BETWEEN 1 . D. N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O NARYANAPPA RESIDING AT GOKULA NILAYA DEVASANDRA, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 560 036.
2 . RAJA C AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O CHINNATHAMBI RESIDING AT OPP: GAYATHRI SCHOOL GROUND, VIJINAPURA D.V. NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016.
3 . B. L. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE D. LAKSHMAN RESIDING AT NO.109, 6TH CROSS AMBEDKAR NAGAR, R.M. NAGAR BENGALURU 560 016.
4 . MANJUNATHA N AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O NARAYAN REDDY RESIDING AT NO.52, SREE NILAYA 7TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, R.M. NAGAR BENGALURU 560 016.
5 . H.A. GOPLALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O ASHWATHAPPA RESIDING AT NO.52, 5TH CROSS MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, K R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036.
6 . P. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O C. PUTTACHAR RESIDING AT NO.40/1, 1ST CROSS GANDHIJI ROAD OPP: PAPAREDDY BUILDING R.M. NAGAR, D.V. NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016.
7 . VINODH S AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SADASHIVA R/AT NO.42/1, SARALASHIVAM BUILDING 4TH CROSS, GANDHIJI ROAD OPP: NICE FARE, R.M. NAGAR BENGALURU 560 016.
8 . RAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O CHINAPULAYA R/AT NO.19, 5TH CROSS LAKSHMI NARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE MANJUNATHA NAGAR, KALKERE HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU 560 043.
9 . M.V. BABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O VENKATASWAMY R/AT NO.153, ARUTHI STREET OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, R.M. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 016.
10 . M. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O A. MANI R/AT NO.15, 10TH MAIN VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT HORAMAVU ROAD R.M. NAGAR NEW EXTENSION BENGALURU 560 016.
11 . VEERASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O MANIKAM R/AT NO.6, CLUB ROAD ANANDAPURA, T.C. PALYA MAIN ROAD K.R. PURA POST, BENGALURU 560 036.
12 . RAVICHANDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O RAMASWAMY C R/AT NO.47, VSR ROAD, UDAY NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 016.
13 . M. RAMESH BABU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O MARIYAPPA R/AT NO.130, NEAR SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGAR T.C. PALYA MAIN ROAD R.M. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 016.
14 . N. RAMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O NAGARAJAN R/AT 19, 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK AKSHAYA NAGAR R.M. NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016.
15 . ALEX K. PHILIP AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O K.C. PHILIP R/AT NO.20, DASAPPA LAYOUT 2ND CROSS, R.M. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 016.
16 . K. KOLANJI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O KANDASWAMY .M R/AT NO.49, 7TH CROSS KAVERAPPA LAYOUT AKSHYANAGAR A. NARAYANAPURA BENGALURU 560 016.
17 . AMUDHA R AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O THANGAVELU.C R/AT NO.19, 2ND MAIN AKSHYA NAGAR R.M. NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016.
18 . GIRISH V AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O VAJRAPPA R/AT NO.62, 3RD CROSS BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU 560 076.
19 . BABU K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE KALLAPPA R/AT NO.269, KOWDENAHALLI R.M. NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016.
20 . PRABHAKARAN V AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O VEERA RAGHAVAN R/AT NO.61, 11TH CROSS KALKERE MAIN ROAD, R.M. NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARASEGOWDA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY K R PURAM POLICE BANGALORE 45.
REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01.
2. SRI. JOSEPH S/O LATE. AROGYASWAMY AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN ADD SANNATAMMANHALLI VILLAGE AT T C PALYA, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUKA-560 036.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P.YASHODA, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE ROCEEDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 10TH ACMM, BENGALURU IN PCR NO. 50138/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY CRIME NO.25/2019 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 34, 120-B, 467, 468 AND 420 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, (IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:
“ To quash the entire proceedings on the file of learned 10th ACMM, Bangalore in PCR No.50138/2019 produced at Annexure-A and consequently Crime No.0025/2019 registered by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 34, 120B, 467, 465, 468 and 420 of IPC produced at Annexure-B.”
2. The petitioners and the complainant were transacting with a particular land. The petitioners alleged to have created number of khathas, whereby they sold the properties for 23 persons. Prima facie when it was verified in the office of the Gramapanchayath Bidarahalli, it was found that such khathas – documents were not existing in the relevant register. Consequently, prima facie it is evident that those khathas which have been used for the purpose of selling of property to 23 persons which amounts to cheating.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs State of Maharastra and others, reported in 2019 SC 847, at paragraph No.9 held as under:
“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prinyanka Srivatsava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 (para 31).
5. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation that large number of persons were alleged to have been cheated in respect of property transactions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs.State of Gujarat and Anr, reported in 2017) 9 SCC 641, made an observation that such allegations relating to cheating of large number in respect of property would fall under the definition of economic offences on the society.
6. In view of the aforesaid decisions, in the cases of Prabath Ahir (supra) and Sau. Kamal Shivaji (supra), read with Dr. Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka & others etc., in Criminal Appeal Nos.1573- 1575 of 2019, decided on 17/10/2019 (para-9), the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Prinyanka Srivatsava, does not assist the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitioners have not made out any ground so as to interfere at this stage. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE DL