IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRL.P.NO.466/2018 BETWEEN 1. LOKESH S/O. JAYAPRAKASH AGED 39 YEARS 2. DHIVYA LAKSHMI W/O. LOKESH AGED 36 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3 PALANI MUDALIAR STREET HALASURU BANGALORE-560 008. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.S.VISHWANATH, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 048 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) 2. SMT. NAVANEEDAM W/O. GOVINDASWAMY AGED 55 YEARS R/AT # 36/60 SHAKTHINAGAR OBALAPPA LAYOUT D.V. NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 016. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, H.C.G.P. FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.54260/2016 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.494/2014 OF MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 457, 380 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE XLIII - A.C.M.M. COURT, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though the matter is listed for orders, it is taken up for disposal for two reasons:
(a) Petitioners claim to be the purchasers of property from one Smt. Usha Ramamurthy, against whom the respondent No.2-complainant had filed a complaint. Challenging initiation of prosecution against her (Smt. Usha Ramamurthy), who had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3571/2014 and said petition came to be allowed on 29.11.2016 (Annexure-F) and petitioners being the purchasers from Smt. Usha Ramamurthy are seeking for quashing of proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 at the instance of complainant i.e., respondent No.2, who had also not appeared in the proceedings before learned Magistrate;
(b) Proceedings before learned Magistrate is of the year 2016 and complaint is of the year 2014 and all efforts made by the petitioners to take out notice on the respondents has been in vain. Hence, keeping the present proceedings pending before this Court would only add to pendency of cases and would not serve any purpose. Hence, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Having heard Sri K.S. Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S. Chandrashekaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled to relief sought for in the petition for following reasons.
3. Petitioners herein purchased the property bearing house site No.6/C, house list Khatha No.128/2, K.R. Puram Nagara Sabhe Khatha No.32/1 in converted land bearing Sy.No.60 situate at Benniganahalli Village, Shakthi Nagar, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from Smt. Usha Ramamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure-E). Said Smt. Usha Ramamurthy is stated to have borrowed certain amount from Vijaya Bank, Residency Road and had deposited the title deeds in favour of the bank and as such, petitioners are stated to have paid the amount due to the said bank with the consent of Smt. Usha Ramamurthy, upon which she has executed a sale deed in favour of petitioners. Prior to execution of sale deed in favour of petitioners, respondent No.2- complainant is said to have interfered with the possession of Smt. Usha Ramamurthy and as such, she had filed a civil suit. In the said suit, respondent No.2-complainant herein had entered appearance and conceded that there was a sale transaction. In fact, jurisdictional police, who investigated the complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein against Smt. Usha Ramamurthy had also found that there was no basis for the said complaint. As such, proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 herein against Smt. Usha Ramamurthy on the same set of allegations as made against the present petitioner, Crl.P.No.3571/2014 filed by Smt. Usha Ramamurthy came to be allowed by order dated 29.11.2016 and proceedings which was pending in Crime No.653/2013 came to be quashed. It is thereafter, Smt. Usha Ramamurthy sold the property in question in favour of present petitioners under sale deed dated 05.09.2013 referred to above.
4. Again the said complainant i.e., respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against petitioners on 12.08.2014 which was registered in Crime No.494/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘I.P.C.’ for short) and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.54260/2016. In fact, the petitioners herein had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the complainant from interfering with their possession in O.S.No.26838/2013 which came to be compromised between petitioners (plaintiffs therein) and respondent No.2-complainant herein as per compromise petition filed before the trial Court. In fact, in the said suit wherein compromise was entered into, defendant therein (respondent No.2- complainant herein) had also undertaken to withdraw all allegations made in the complaint in question which has culminated in registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.494/2014. Yet, he did not withdraw the complaint and as such, petitioners are before this Court for quashing the proceedings.
5. When the matter had ended in a compromise and dispute in question being purely of civil nature which is evident from the records referred herein supra, continuation of present proceedings against petitioners would definitely is an abuse of process of law and it would be onerous to call upon the petitioners to face trial.
6. Hence, the following:
ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.54260/2016 on the file of the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengalru City is hereby quashed and they are acquitted of the offences under Sections 448, 457 and 380 of I.P.C.
SD/-
JUDGE ST