IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5890/2016 BETWEEN:
1. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DODDAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK.
2. MOGGA SITARAMAIAH S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.401, RASHI SPLENDOR, RAGHUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,-561203.
(By Sri.B.RAMESH, ADV.) AND 1. STATE BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DIST.-561203 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU ... PETITIONERS 2. JAYAMALA W/O VIJAYKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT.NO.39, PREETHINAGARA, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, LAGGERE, BENGALURU CITY.
(By Sri.I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 Sri. G.T.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 ) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.281/2013 IN PCR NO.196/2013 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,504,120(B),448,465, 468 AND 471 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners, namely accused Nos.3 and 4 in FIR No.281/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 506, 34, 504, 120-B, 448, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC are before this court seeking quashing of the said FIR.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
3. Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint in PCR No.196/2013 against the petitioners and two other accused persons. According to the complainant, she is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.12 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Nagadenahalli, Doddaballapur taluk. There was a dispute with respect of the said land and RFA No.1975/2005 was pending between the complainant and her family members. In the said appeal, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and a memo was filed and based on the said memo, Suit was dismissed on 31.07.2009. In the memo, it was stated that the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.09.2008 in favour of accused No.4. According to the complainant, the accused have not paid the entire sale consideration and that accused No.4 in collusion with accused Nos.1 to 3 obtained her signature under the guise that the same is required to produce the same before the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid agreement dated 12.9.2008 is registered before the Sub-registrar of Doddaballapur. Respondent No.2, as well as the other members of her family, as many as 11 executants were present before the Sub-registrar and their LTM and photos were taken during registration of the document. Further, on the same day, a Power of attorney was executed by 2nd respondent as well as other executants and the said Power of attorney also was registered, wherein the signatures, LTM and photos of all the executants were obtained. In the said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint that the signature of the complainant was obtained under misrepresentation on the pretext that the same is required for production before the Court is far from truth. Further, he submits that under the said agreement, a sum of Rs.1,01,25,000/- was paid through cheques and Rs.61 lakhs was paid in cash and the same is acknowledged before the Sub-registrar and hence, there is no basis to sustain the charges leveled against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel has further contended that the complaint in question is motivated and calculated to extract money from the petitioners and the other accused. Even though respondent No.2 has alleged that her signature was obtained under misrepresentation, yet the aforesaid agreement of sale is not questioned or challenged before any Court of law till date, instead, in terms of the said agreement of sale, registered sale deed has been executed on 28.01.2011. Even the said sale deed has not been challenged before the Civil Court. Therefore, in the face of these documents, the allegations made against the petitioners are false and baseless on the face of the record. Furthermore, these allegations do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR. Thus, prays for quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. Learned SPP, however, has argued in support of the impugned action and would submit that the matter being under investigation, having regard to the seriousness of the charges, no ground is made out by the petitioners to quash the proceedings at this stage.
7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the records.
8. Respondent No.2 has not controverted the assertions made in the petition nor has she disputed the documents produced by the petitioners. These documents prima facie establish that an agreement of sale was executed by 2nd respondent, as well as other members of her family. There is nothing on record to suggest that any members of the 2nd respondent’s family have questioned or challenged the said agreement of sale till date. On the other hand, convincing proof is produced to show that consideration has been received by 2nd respondent, as well as other members of her family in terms of the said agreement. Registered sale deed executed pursuant to the agreement of sale has also remained unchallenged till date. Under the said circumstances, there is absolutely no basis for respondent No.2 to contend that the petitioners herein have played fraud on the complainant and have obtained her signature under misrepresentation, as contended. The documents referred above clearly indicate that respondent No.2 was aware of the execution of these documents as back as in 2008 itself, as is evident from the assertions made in the complaint that she has entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.09.2008. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences is ulteriorly motivated and intended to extract money from the petitioners on account of rise in the value of immovable properties. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature.
9. For all the above reasons, I am of the clear opinion that no criminal action can be sustained against the petitioners based on the alleged charges.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.281/2013 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed only insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.