IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7356/2017 BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O. P.V.SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. HOUSE NO.1214, 2ND CROSS 3RD MAIN, VIVEKANANDANAGAR MYSORE CITY – 570 010 (BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION MYSORE CITY BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. RADHA B.
D/O. K. BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS A/AT NO.12, 5TH MAIN YADAVAGIRI MYSORE – 570 020 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1 SRI T.I.ABDULLA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.20/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 406, 409, 120B, 196, 197, 198, 200(B) OF IPC AND SECTION 3(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo reporting the death of respondent No.2. Copy of death certificate is enclosed.
2. Petitioner has not chosen to implead the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the deceased respondent No.2, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
3. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and one George David – accused No.2 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B, 196, 197, 198 and 200 of IPC and Section 3(5) of SC / ST (POA) Act, 1989.
4. The material allegations made against the petitioner is that, the petitioner herein impersonated the complainant – respondent No.2 and got executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 through HUDCO.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that even though the prosecution has been instituted against the petitioner on the basis that the complainant has been impersonated and a registered documents have been brought about, yet the complainant – respondent No.2 himself had filed a suit in O.S.No.1656/2007 before the IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mysuru, seeking declaration that the title deed relating to the said property i.e., property House No.5, situated at Jayanagar, 2nd Stage, 807, HUDCO layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru, is illegal, null and void. Further, she sought for declaration that the sale deed executed on 16.02.1999 by the petitioner herein in favour of defendant No.2 as general power of attorney holder of the respondent No.2 and release deed dated 23.11.2007, executed by the petitioner in favour of accused No.2 as general power of attorney holder of respondent No.2 as illegal, null and void.
6. In the said proceedings, the parties entered into mutual settlement and filed compromise petition before the Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC with the following terms:
“The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 above named humbly beg to state and pray as hereunder:
1. The plaintiff had filed this suit against the defendant for the reliefs of declaration, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property.
2. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have today come to compromise terms based on the advice of elders and well-wishers. Further as the plaintiff and defendant 3 is old and they want to settle the matter amicably. As the 3rd defendant is the Power of Attorney holder of 2nd defendant she will represent 2nd defendant in this case.
3. The plaintiff herewith not claiming any kind of relief against the 1st and 4th defendant and they are not required for compromise petition and hence a separate memo is filed by plaintiff for deleting them from this suit.
4. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are jointly selling the suit schedule property and the proceeds will be apportioned as per the separate Memorandum of Understanding dated 17-08-2016 entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. As such there is no dispute among the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 for such arrangement arrived at by the parties. Further if the intending purchaser requires the signature of plaintiff either as party vendor or as consenting witness the plaintiff has agreed to abide by that condition to affix her signature as will be desired by the purchasers.
5. In view of the same the suit may be decreed as prayed in conjunction with the compromise arrived to by the parties to this suit.
Wherefore the plaintiff and defendant humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to record the compromise in view of the terms and conditions mentioned above in the interest of justice and equity.”
7. Based on the said compromise petition, the suit has been decreed. Accused No.2 had also approached this Court in criminal petition No.7133/2015 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as above, this Court has quashed the proceedings against respondent No.2 by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Further, it is stated that based on the above compromise, accused No.2 and respondent No.2/complainant have executed a sale deed in favour of a third party, wherein, respondent No.2 has unequivocally admitted the genuineness of the transaction, as such, there is no basis to prosecute the petitioner. The recitals in the decree passed by the civil Court are binding against the 2nd respondent and his legal heirs. In view of these unimpeachable documents prosecution cannot be continued against the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.20/2013 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj