IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.877/2016 Between:
1. Smt.R.Kavitha W/o Sri.G.E.Doreswamy Gowda, Aged about 41 years, 2. Sri.G.E.Doreswamy Gowda S/o Eriyappa Gowda, Aged about 45 years, Both are residing at No.1847 Second Floor, VI Cross, 22nd Main Road, II Stage, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 007. … Petitioners (By Sri.Vittal Sattigeri, Advocate for Sri.Deepak J, Advocate) And:
1. The State by Wilson Garden Police Station, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. K.Vijay Kumar S/o Kempaiah, Aged 56 years, Comfort Shelter Private Limited, No.102, 5th Floor, K H Road, Wilson Garden – 560 027.
Bengaluru City. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1 and Sri.M.R.Balakrishna, Advocate a/w Sri.T.S.Dwarakanath, Advocate for R.2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9861/2015 on the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 419, 420, 468 of IPC and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Charge Sheet has been laid against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 419, 420, 468 of IPC in C.C.No.9861/2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 did not enter into any agreement of sale with the complainant/respondent No.2 and she had only entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2 to offer her property as security.
5. The charge against petitioner No.1 is that she had entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.09.2007 whereunder she agreed to sell the property comprised in Sy. No.10/2 measuring 1850 sq. ft., for total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque). During the subsistence of the said agreement, petitioner No.1 transferred the very same property to one B.Gangadharaiah by executing a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2010 for a sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-.
6. These allegations, in my view, attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Even though the civil suits are said to be pending before the parties, the averments made in the complaint disclose criminal intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat and fraud respondent No.2. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the above petition, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM