IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Criminal Petition No.9267/2016 BETWEEN:
1. D.S.BRUNDAMMA (SHOWN AS BRUNDA WRONGLY IN THE CHARGE SHEET) W/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED 60 YEARS 2. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE N.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED 65 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.20, EAST END ‘D’ MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 069.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.K.VENKAT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY THILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION, MICO LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY-560 041.
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU- 01.
2. CHAND BEGUM W/O LATE K.ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.T -4, J.K.RESIDENCY, BHEL LAYOUT, SRK GARDEN, TILAK NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 041.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET, IN C.C.NO.13421/2016 ON THE FILE OF II A.C.M.M, BENGALURU AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet filed against them for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in C.C.No.13421/2016 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The husband of 2nd respondent Sri K.Abdul Basheer entered into a written agreement of sale dated 26.01.1994 with the petitioners and others to purchase six items of land comprised in Sy.Nos.84, 85, 56, 110, 91 and 104 situated at Solemakalapelli Village, Mittamari Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk. On the strength of the said agreement of sale, he executed GPA in favour of his wife namely 2nd respondent herein on 15.01.1997 and on the same day executed a gift deed (Hiba) in her favour.
3. The said Sri K.Abdul Basheer died on 25.10.2000. Subsequent to his death, 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 Police alleging that the petitioners herein have received a compensation in respect of three items of the properties namely 56/2, 85 and 104, in respect of which, she was holding an agreement of sale.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the complainant nor her husband are entitled for the compensation in respect of the said three items of land. The petitioners herein continued to be the owners of the said properties and therefore, they are entitled to receive the compensation from the Government in respect of the land acquired by the Government. There is absolutely no element of cheating by the petitioners in withdrawing the compensation due to them. The complaint therefore is misconceived. Without considering these basic aspects, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners, which is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of court.
5. The learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the husband of the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the very same properties, which are now acquired by the Government. He does not dispute the fact that the petitioners herein have received the compensation in respect of the said land.
6. In the light of the above contention, the question that falls for consideration is by receiving compensation from the Government, whether the petitioners herein have committed any offence under Section 420 of IPC?
7. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that respondent No.2 is an agreement holder in respect of three items of the property, which are now acquired by the Government. Sale in favour of respondent No.2 or in favour of her husband is not completed yet, as a result, respondent No.2 has not derived any right or title to the said properties. On the other hand, the petitioners herein continued to be the absolute owners of the said properties and therefore, they alone are entitled to receive the compensation from the Government as a matter of right. Therefore, there is substance in the contention urged by respondent No.2 that by receiving the compensation from the Government, the petitioners have not committed any criminal offence, much less an offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, there is no basis for the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners being illegal and an abuse of process of court, are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.13421/2016 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed only insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB