IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8035/2017 BETWEEN:
RAJASHEKAR @ RAJASHEKAR MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O G. MUNIREDDY R/O GONIGHATTAPURA VIILAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALURU - 562 125.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARJAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY S/O RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.1010, 26TH MAIN 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED IN CR.NO.229/2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SARJAPURA POLICE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE U/S 420 IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (SR.DN.) COURT, ANEKAL.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner, Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri. Gowthamdev C.Ullal, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of proceedings pending in Crime No.229/2017 registered by Sarjapur Police Station against petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
3. Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner contends that a plain reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence attributable to the petitioner and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Advocates appearing for respondents would support the case of the prosecution and pray for dismissal of the criminal petition.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., in Crl.A.No.225/2019 disposed of on 12.02.2019 has held:
“6.Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trail, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial Court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted.”
6. Keeping in mind the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to herein supra when the complaint in question is perused, it would clearly indicate that a specific allegation has been made by second respondent-complainant alleging that Sri.Srinivas Reddy, his wife Smt. Sudha and Sri.Thanish Kumar jointly had received a sum of `4.50 Crores from the complainant-second respondent for sale of property bearing Sy.No.76/1 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas on 23.12.2015 and they had executed a registered agreement along with power of attorney which was also duly registered and yet, subsequent to execution of said documents, Sri. Srinivass Reddy and his wife Smt.Sudha had executed a release deed in favour of their daughter Smt. Yashaswini by registering the said document with an intension to deceive the complainant. It is also alleged that accused persons conniving with each other and suppressing earlier transaction have clandestinely executed release-deed in favour of Smt.Yashaswini who is none other than their daughter. They have further alleged that even in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner these three persons have suppressed the transaction relating to sale of the property in favour of the complainant and depicted as though they have settled the matter amongst themselves and have got the khatha of the property in question mutated to their names and subsequently sold said property (1 Acre 25 guntas) in favour of petitioner herein, who in connivance had purchased the said property on 24.06.2017 with an intension to deceive the complainant. Hence, they sought for action being taken against petitioner- accused persons. On the basis of said complaint jurisdictional police have registered FIR in Crime No.229/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and it is still at the stage of investigation. As such without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and leaving open the issue regarding complicity of the petitioner to be investigated by the jurisdictional police, this petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that investigating officer shall not get prejudiced by the order of dismissal of this petition and shall independently investigate the said complaint and proceed in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE RU