IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8900/2018 BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED SALEEM, S/O MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT RASOOL LAYOUT, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, SHIVRAMKARANTH POST, BANGALORE – 560 077. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SYED SALEEM, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 077.
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01.
2. SHEELA POOVAIAH, W/O HARISH POOVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, 2ND FLOOR, TRINITY ORCHARDS, 3RD CROSS, JANAKI RAM, HENNURU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 043. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.24057/2018 OF SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (C.M.M. COURT) OF BANGALORE FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 468, 471 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Syed Saleem, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri S.Chandrashekaraiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State and perused records.
2. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against petitioner alleging that petitioner is known to her through his 2nd wife-Naseema Banu, who was working in her beauty parlour as a beautician and she had introduced her husband as a real estate agent who assured her that he will get her a residential site at a cheaper rate and believing her words she paid petitioner a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for a site to be allotted by Government and later on it was found that there was no such property, which came to be granted or sold to her. She has further alleged that documents furnished by the accused were all fabricated documents and believing his words that said documents are originals, she had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for Hakku Patra and spent Rs.1,00,000/- for khata and towards payment of taxes. She further alleges that accused had informed her that there are more sites and furnished her with two more fabricated documents and on enquiry, she came to know that she was informed by the accused that he had obtained General Power of Attorney from its owners. Hence, she claims to have given additional amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards two Hakku Patras and subsequently, she came to know that all the documents which were furnished by him are all fabricated documents, for which she had spent Rs.1,00,000/-. She further states that accused had secured one Mr.Amjad Basha as the prospective purchaser of the sites which she had purportedly purchased from accused and copies of the documents were handed over to him. He had assured to purchase said sites and had paid Rs.3,00,000/- advance and had requested for demolition of the shed existing in the site and at that time, it was brought to her knowledge that said site belongs to some one else and documents which were produced were forged documents. On these amongst other grounds, she lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police against petitioner, which has been registered in Crime No.62/2016 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed which is now pending adjudication in C.C.No.24057/2018 for offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Hence, petitioner is before this Court contending inter alia that dispute is of civil nature and learned Magistrate could not have proceeded to take cognizance and issued process to him.
3. As could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet material, petitioner has been charged for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Hence, only on the ground of dispute having civil flavour it would not absolve petitioner from criminal liability, if any. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no opinion can be expressed at this stage as it is likely to prejudice the right of petitioner in pending proceedings and there is no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is rejected.
4. In view of rejection of petition, I.A.No.1/2018 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly I.A.No.1/2018 is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE TL