Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9369/2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9713/2018 IN CRL.P. NO.9369/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. N.H. PRASAD REDDY S/O N.H. PEDDA SHIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS #51, 9TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS NEAR BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, HAL 3RD STAGE INDRIANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 075.
2. N.H. SARABHA REDDY S/O N.H. PEDDA SHIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEAR #2, UKN ESPERANZA VENKATESWARA TEMPLE TUBARAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 066.
3. SAILAJA REDDY W/O N.H. BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS #25/684-52, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, OPP. RAO’S DEGREE COLLEGE, NANDYAL – 518 501 KURNOOL DIST.
4. VINAY S/O YERRA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS #499, 9TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS ISRO LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 078.
5. RAMESH REDDY S/O RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SRI. RAM SPANDANA APTS B-1-401, NEAR EMBASSY GOLF LINKS, CHALLAGHATTA MARATHHALLI COLONY BANGALORE – 560 037.
(BY SRI. RAJESH RAI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGODI PS BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANNEXED TO HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. D.R. GOPINATH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY R/O 442, 10TH CROSS GIRI NAGARA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V. MALLAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 BY SRI RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF LEARNED MAGISTRATE OF 1st C.J.M., COURT, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.08.2018 IN C.C.NO.6189/2018 AND THEREBY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.6189/2018 OF KADUGODI P.S., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
IN CRL.P. NO. 9713/2018: BETWEEN:
1. SRI. N.H. BHASKAR REDDY S/O N.H. PEDDA SHIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.25/684-52 PADMAVATHI NAGAR OPP:RAO’S DEGREE COLLEGE, NANDYAL KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 501.
2. SRI. SRINIVAS REDDY S/O VEMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1348, 8TH A CROSS SARAKKI 1ST STAGE, J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SRI. PRABHAKAR NAIDU S/O YERRA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.499, 9TH MAIN 12TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 078.
(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DR. GOPINATH S/O LATE D.P. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT NO.593, SAJJAN RAO ROAD, V.V. PURAM BENGALURU - 560 004.
(BY SRI. S. RACHIAH, HCGP FOR R-1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. B.V. MALLAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.63/2017 DATED 22.02.2017 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 KADUGODI POLICE ALONG WITH COMPLAINT DATED 22.02.2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.1,5 AND 6 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,468,406,471 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4, 7, 8 (in Crl.P.No.9369/2018) and 1, 5 & 6 (in Crl.P.No.9713/2018) in C.C.No.6189/2018 (arising out of Crime No.63/2017) registered by Kadugodi police station for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 IPC now pending on the file of I CJM Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru are before this court for quashing of the order dated 14.08.2018 taking cognizance for the said offences and have prayed for quashing of the proceedings by filing these two petitions. Since the facts as well as grounds urged are same and identical, these two petitions are taken up together for consideration, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. Second respondent herein lodged a complaint with Kadugodi police station on 22.02.2017 (Annexure-C) alleging that one of his friend Sri Srinivasalu Reddy had introduced Sri N.H.Bhaskar Reddy, Sri N.H.Sarabha Reddy and Smt.Sailaja Reddy (accused Nos.2 to 4) by informing the complainant that said persons are owning and possessing immovable property bearing Sy.No.69/6 measuring 29 guntas situated at Sadaramangala village and they are intending to sell the said property as they are in financial crisis. The complainant further alleged that Sri Srinivasulu Reddy had informed that said property though worth Rs.5 crores, the vendors are ready to sell for Rs.3.5 crores and all the accused persons with a common intention to cheat the complainant had created fake documents and had sold the said property to complainant and C.Ws.2 to 5. It is further alleged in the complaint that C.W.1 to C.W.5 came to know about said property being in litigation which was informed to the accused persons and in turn, the accused persons called C.W.1 to C.W.10 to their office for settlement and despite talks being held, they refused to return the amount and also threatened the complainant and others of dire consequences. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.63/2017 by Kadugodi Police against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 406, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The jurisdictional police after investigation had filed the charge sheet.
3. The jurisdictional Magistrate on perusal of the charge sheet material, by order dated 14.08.2018 has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and issued summons to accused. Subsequently, NBW came to be issued against accused persons. Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2018 i.e., order taking cognizance of the offence as well as continuation of the proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate and now pending in C.C.No.6189/2018, petitioners are before this court with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance and the entire proceedings.
5. I have heard the arguments of Sri Rajesh Rai and Sri Muniyappa, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners in respective petitions and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State and Sri B.V.Mallareddy, learned Advocate appearing for second respondent.
6. It is the contention of Sri Muniyappa, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that complaint in question has been filed to coerce the petitioners to come to terms with the respondent and the dispute in question is purely of civil nature and there being no existence of mens rea at the time of petitioners executing the sale deeds in favour of C.W.1 to C.W.5, continuation of the criminal proceedings would not only be an abuse of process of law but also would cause the petitioners great injustice as they will have to undergo the ordeal of trial.
6.1) He would further contend that there is no criminal conspiracy on the part of petitioners and conveying defective title would not give rise to initiation of criminal prosecution. He would submit that the alleged sale deeds have been executed in the year 2011 and the complaint in question has been filed in the year 2017 and this fact itself would indicate that the dispute is of purely civil nature and none of the provisions of Indian Penal Code would get attracted for continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners.
6.2) He would also contend that allegation made in the complaint against accused persons (A2 to A4 and A7, A8) is to the effect that they have produced duplicate encumbrance certificate as also other documents being duplicate. Whereas, the charge sheet material would indicate that the said documents are issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar and thereby there is no essential requirement to constitute the offence of forgery and in the absence of it, the ingredient of Section 420 IPC is not attracted. He would also contend that having regard to the entire prosecution case, the element of deception and inducement to fraudulent intention as per Section 415 IPC is not made out. They would also contend that there is no explanation whatsoever offered for delay of 7 years in filing the complaint.
6.3) It is further contended that sale deed executed by accused No.1 is not at all challenged by any of the parties and the prosecution initiated against petitioner is to apply pressure in order to coerce the petitioner to come to terms. Hence, they prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
7. In support of their submissions, they have relied upon the following judgments:
(i) 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2447 ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) (ii) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & OTHERS vs. DEVENDER ANAND & OTHERS (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.834 OF 2017, DECIDED ON 08.08.2019) 8. Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent by relying upon the charge sheet material would submit that at the initial stage, the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings pending before the trial Judge should not be invoked unless it appears from the said material that even if they were to remain unrebutted, it would not lead to conviction of the accused and only in such circumstances, the prosecution can be quashed as continuation of it may perforce the accused to undergo the ordeal of trial. He would submit that in the instant case, the Investigation Officer has collected sufficient material which would establish that said material will have to be proved by the prosecution during trial and at this stage, the proceedings are not to be scuttled. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
9. Per contra, Sri B V Mallareddy, learned Advocate appearing for second respondent would support the case of prosecution and contend that the accused persons are not only facing the prosecution initiated against them in the instant case but also other criminal cases registered with Madivala Police Station for similar offences and at later stages, have compromised the matter, which would clearly indicate their intent to cheat and defraud the complainant and C.Ws.2 to 5. It is further contended that the petitioners herein have been evading the arrest and process of law and as such, in the charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional Police Station, they have been shown as absconding. He would further contend that petitioners are habitual offenders, fraudsters and have cheated many other persons like the complainant. He would contend that accused persons in the garb of carrying on the real estate business and land development are indulging in floating different companies with different names and lure the potential investors to invest in the lands depicting forged and fabricated documents as genuine and use the same for registration of the deeds and thereby induce the potential buyers to part with the money by cheating and defrauding them.
9.1) He would further elaborate his submission by contending that statement of witnesses have been recorded and the Investigating Officer has collected relevant material which would prove the guilt of offence committed by accused and the very fact that unregistered firms have been formed would indicate the intention of the accused persons is to commit illegal acts. Hence, by reiterating the pleas put forward in the statement of objections as well as grounds urged therein, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments :
(i) MD.ALLAUDDIN KHAN vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.675/2019 DECIDED ON 15.04.2019.) Next >