IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.4246/2019 BETWEEN 1. SHRI PANDURANGA SHETTY S/O ADHIKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SMT. SANDYA RANI W/O PANDURANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SHRI SAGAR K P S/O PANDURANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL THREE ARE RESIDING AT NO.379/B-5 SANDHYA PANDU NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, III CROSS, SRINAGARA BENGALURU-560036 (BY SRI ARAVIND M NEGLUR, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION MYSURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...PETITIONERS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 2. SHRI R.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BIN.LATE M.RADAKRISHNA SHETTY, R/AT 53, NO.59/60, G-1, NAGASHANKAR APARTMENTS, SHANKARAMATTA MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, SHANKARAPURAM BENGALURU 560 004.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.9/2019 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE FIRST INFORMATION OF 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406,420.468 R/W 34 OF IPC AND REGISTERED WITH THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, MYSURU CITY AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.
2. Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the registration of FIR registered as Crime No.009/2019 with the respondent-Udayagiri Police Station on 13.01.2019 and the petitioners seek for quashing of the same.
3. The petitioners are husband, wife and son. The informant-complainant is none other than the petitioner no.2’s brother. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that on a reading of the complaint, no offence is made out and hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & OTHERS VS DEVENDER ANAND & OTHERS – AIR 2019 SC 3807, the further investigation in the matter would amount to abuse of the process of law and that the complaint discloses a civil transaction and allowing a civil dispute to be converted into a criminal complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Secondly, he has placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of AJAY MITRA VS STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS – (2003)3 SCC 11, to contend that the mens rea should be apparent at the time the attempt was made to induce the delivery of property and in the instant case, there is no delivery of property nor is mens rea alleged. Hence, registration of FIR is unsustainable and warrants interference.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the FIR is at the investigation stage and the same does not warrant interference as the complaint allegations are required to be looked into and investigated by the jurisdictional police.
5. In the light of the above contentions, this Court has adverted to the contents of the complaint. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had lent a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to his brother-in-law – petitioner no.1 herein who had suffered losses in his business and that after some period of time, he started pressurizing his sister and brother-in-law to repay the sums to him. That one day he was called by his sister and brother-in-law to visit Bengaluru and when he did visit them in Bengaluru, the petitioners introduced one Anil Kumar as a leading real estate broker at Mysuru and that there is one property worth Rs.50 lakhs and that the complainant may take the said property by paying the balance sum of Rs.20 lakhs. It is the further case of the complainant that pursuant to the same, he was taken to Mysuru by the said Anil Kumar and there he was shown the property and that he consented to buy the said property by deducting the sum of Rs.30 lakhs due to him and by paying the remaining amount. That he also paid a further sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs towards purchase of the said property and thereafter when he started pressurizing for registration, the petitioners are said to have represented to him that the conveyance of earlier property has run into certain obstacles and there is one more property which is worth Rs.65 lakhs and is free of encumbrances. Yet again, the said Anil Kumar is said to have taken the complainant to the said property and that the complainant was informed to be ready on 19.07.2019 to execute the registered sale deed. That pursuant to the same, he also paid a sum of Rs.27.5 lakhs and another sum of Rs.5 lakhs and in all, he has paid a sum of Rs.70 lakhs. That the registration of sale deed was completed in Sub-Registrar’s office and thereafter when he approached the jurisdictional authorities for transfer of khatha, the authorities have informed him that the documents pertaining to the site are bogus documents and hence, the complaint.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the complaint does not disclose any intention of cheating and that in the absence of mens rea, the same would remain as a civil dispute. The said contention requires to be rejected for the short reason that the complaint prima facie discloses the intention of the parties to cheat the gullible informant. This Court is constrained to observe so keeping in view the nature of relationship between the informant and the accused. If the endorsement issued by the MUDA is to the effect that the site documents are all bogus documents, then the person who has executed the sale deed apparently also has no right and title.
7. Be that as it may, the contention that there was no intention to induce delivery of property, etc., does not merit consideration at this stage, as prima facie the complaint discloses the commission of an offence. The matter being at the stage of investigation, this Court does not find any good ground which would warrant interference with the continuation of the investigation. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are for the disposal of the instant petition and it is not for the authorities to place reliance to conclude and lay a charge against the petitioners and others. Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR