IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5666 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SMT. PAVITHRA AGED 52 YEARS W/O LATE S SRINATH, R/AT FLAT NO.102, SRISHAILA NILAYA, I FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, DOMMALURU, BENGALURU-560 071 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION, TILAK NAGAR,BENGALURU, BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR & SHO, REPTD.BY SPP PIN-560001.
2. SMT CHAND BEGUM W/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, G.K RESIDENCY, BHEL GARDEN, BENGALURU-560041 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.13421/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the charge sheet filed against her for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC in C.C.No.13421/2016 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The husband of 2nd respondent Sri K. Abdul Basheer entered into a written agreement of sale dated 26.01.1994 with the petitioner and others to purchase six items of land comprised in Sy.Nos.84, 85, 56, 110, 91 and 104 situated at Solemakalapelli Village, Mittamari Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk. On the strength of the said agreement of sale, he executed GPA in favour of his wife namely 2nd respondent herein on 15.01.1997 and on the same day executed a gift deed (Hiba) in her favour.
3. The said Sri K.Abdul Basheer died on 25.10.2000. Subsequent to his death, 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 Police alleging that the petitioner herein has received compensation in respect of one item of the property, in respect of which, she was holding an agreement of sale.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the complainant nor her husband are entitled for the compensation in respect of the acquired land. The petitioner herein continued to be the owner of the said property and therefore, she is entitled to receive the compensation from the Government in respect of the land acquired by the Government. There is absolutely no element of cheating by the petitioner in withdrawing the compensation. The complaint therefore is misconceived. Without considering these basic aspects, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner, which is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of court.
5. The learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the husband of the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the very same property, which is now acquired by the Government. He does not dispute the fact that the petitioner herein has received the compensation in respect of the said land.
6. In the light of the above contention, the question that falls for consideration is whether by receiving compensation from the Government, the petitioner herein has committed any offence under Section 420 of IPC?
7. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that respondent No.2 is an agreement holder in respect of one item of the property, which is now acquired by the Government. Sale in favour of respondent No.2 or in favour of her husband is not completed yet, as a result, respondent No.2 has not derived any right or title to the said property. On the other hand, the petitioner herein continued to be the absolute owner of the said property and therefore, she alone is entitled to receive the compensation from the Government as a matter of right. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention urged by respondent No.2 that by receiving compensation from the Government, the petitioner has committed a criminal offence, much less an offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, there is no basis for the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner being illegal and an abuse of process of court, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.13421/2016 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-