IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Criminal Petition No.6760 of 2015 BETWEEN:
1. MR H N NAGENDRASIMHA S/O SRI H K NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. MR. H K NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O SRI H KRISHNACHAR AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.68, 3RD MAIN ROAD, PRASHANTHNAGAR BANGALORE-560 079 3. MR. C MOHAN S/O LATE SRI CHANDRA MOULI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.23, 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS MARUTHI EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 021 4. MR NAGARAJ S/O MR. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.82, VASUKI NILAYA, RAJESHWARINAGAR LAGGERE BANGALORE-560 058 (BY SRI. VIKRAM SIMHA, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJAJGOPALA NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 086 2. MRS. SAVITHA G W/O LATE R VASUDEVAN AGED MAJOR NO.70, 13TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR EAST BANGALORE-560 011 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. U. R. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2 - ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R. BEARING CRIME No.627/2015 DATED 31.08.2015 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PENDING BEFORE THE VII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of FIR in Crime No.627/2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B, 468, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 31.08.2015 alleging that on 03.12.2010, husband of complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase an apartment. After the death of her husband, petitioners herein entered into a criminal conspiracy and forged a document making it to appear that the husband of complainant had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from them.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that these proceedings have been initiated against petitioners in respect of an agreement of sale entered into by the husband of complainant on 03.12.2010. The husband of complainant agreed to purchase an apartment for a total consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- and paid Rs.15,00,000/- as advance consideration, but he failed to take the sale deed in his name and hence petitioners 1 and 2 issued legal notice to the husband of respondent No.2 calling upon him to complete the sale transaction by paying balance sale consideration. Thereafter a suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioners 1 and 2 in O.S.No.7322/2015. In said suit, respondent No.2 filed a counter claim for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale which indicates that entire dispute between the parties has arisen out of a written contract of sale. Under the said circumstances, registration of FIR against petitioners based on the above allegations is a clear case of abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that since investigation was stayed, Investigating Officer could not complete investigation and hence seeks to dismiss the petition.
6. Facts narrated above would clearly go to show that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of a written contract of sale entered into between petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of complainant. The documents produced by the petitioners would indicate that during the lifetime of husband of complainant, petitioners 1 and 2 had called upon the husband of complainant to complete sale transaction. Under the said circumstances, allegations made in the complaint that after the death of husband of complainant, petitioners herein have fabricated a document to show that the husband of respondent No.2 had received Rs.2,00,000/- from petitioners, appears to be highly unbelievable and improbable. Moreover, the alleged dispute cannot be adjudicated or decided by a criminal Court. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against petitioners, the institution of criminal proceedings by complainant is a sheer abuse of process of Court and cannot be permitted to continue.
7. For the above reasons, petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.627/2015 dated 31.08.2015 and consequent proceedings are quashed.
Sd/- Judge RD