IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3016 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. K N YELLAPPA S/O.Y.T.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOSQUE ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560036.
2. ANJU AHUJA W/O.RAJIV.H., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HAVING HER OFFICE AT NO.32.33, AND 34, 3RD FLOOR, S.N.S. CHAMBERS, NO.239, SANKEY ROAD, SADASHIVANGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
3. NARAINDAS BODARAM S/O.LATE BODARAM AHUJA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.32.33, AND 34, 3RD FLOOR, S.N.S. CHAMBERS, NO.239, SANKEY ROAD, SADASHIVANGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
4. SURAJ B CHHABRIA S/O.BANSILAL CHHABRIA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, CHAKRAVARTHI LAYOUT, PALACE CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE-560020.
5. LAKSHMI GOPAL MAKHIJA W/O.GOPAL MAKHIJA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/14, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK II CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: SRIDHAR G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE BY VIJAYAPURA POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. GIRIRAJ S/O LATE CHIKKACHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, #120, SRI BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE, NAGASHETTYHALLI, SANJANAGAR, BANGALORE-560094.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.363/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND THE FIR IN CR.NO.176/2014 REGISTERED BY THE I RESPONDENT, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THEM.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of the PCR 363/2014 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
3. The material allegations leveled against the petitioners in the PCR are that GPA and an agreement of sale was got up by the petitioners fraudulently in order to knock off the properties of the complainant comprised in Sy.No.59 measuring 4 acres of Dasarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
4. A reading of the complaint discloses that the disputed GPA was registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office of Devanahalli simultaneously with the agreement of sale. It is borne on record that based on the said agreement of sale and GPA, two sale deeds have been executed in favour of 4th and 2nd petitioners viz. Suraj B Chabbria and Anju Ahuja in the year 1997 and 1998 respectively. Part of the said properties were resold in the year 1998 and subsequently there was another sale transaction in the year 2004. These sale transactions were challenged by the complainant before the Civil Court in O.S.No.776/2008 where he sought for the relief of declaration that the aforesaid agreement and consequent registered sale deeds were null and void. During the pendency of the suits, respondent No.2/complainant has instituted the above complaint making identical allegations against the petitioners that the sale deeds in question were got up by the petitioners fraudulently by impersonation and deception. The dispute raised in the complaint is sub judice in the aforesaid civil suit and therefore, at this juncture, respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to continue the criminal prosecution on the same set of allegations. In this context, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardool Singh And Another v. Smt.Nasib Kaur 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 146 wherein considering the identical situation in relation to a will which was challenged before the Civil Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
“When the question regarding validity of Will is sub judice, criminal prosecution on the allegation of the will being a forged one cannot be instituted.”
5. Even otherwise in the instant case, the dispute raked up by the complainant is purely civil in nature which is seized by the Civil Court. Under the said circumstances, in my view, invocation of the criminal process by the respondent is wholly unwarranted and is an abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be allowed to be continued.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in PCR No.363/2014 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE rs