IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4089/2016 BETWEEN:
Ramesh Babu S/o Mr. Srinivasa Naidu, Aged 52 years, Occupation : Advocate, Residing at No.329, Dollars Apartments, 11th Main, RBI Layout, Bengaluru – 560 078. …Petitioner (By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate) AND:
S.R. Narasimha Murthy, S/o. Mr. S. Rama Rao Aged 62 years, Resident of Flat No.202, Gaurudi Apartment, K.R. Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 078.
Wrongly shown in the Trial Court cause title as No.18/1, 1st Floor, K.G.Nagar Main Road, Opposite Rastrothana Bldg., Bengaluru – 560 019. … Respondent (By Sri.S.R.Narasimha Murthy (Party-in-person) - Absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the learned II ACJM Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.626/2016 (PCR No.500/2015) thereby taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 465, 468, 417, 419, 420, 423, 323, 355, 506 of IPC and ordering to register case and issuance of summons insofar as the same relates to the petitioner/accused No.1.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent/Party-in-person is absent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is accused No.1. Respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others seeking action under Sections 405, 406, 463, 464, 468, 471, 405, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 423, 323, 351, 355, 503, 506, 120B r/w 34 of I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences and recorded sworn statement of the complainant and by order dated 31.12.2015 directed summons to the petitioner/accused No.1 to face trial for the above offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of a written agreement of sale on account of non-performance of the terms of the said agreement by the complainant. Petitioner being the purchaser of the said property has filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 20.06.2002 and after trial, the said suit in O.S.No.1234/2002 has been decreed by judgment and decree dated 07.07.2003. Petitioner levied execution and got the sale deed executed in his favour through process of court on 15.01.2005. More than 10 years after execution of the sale deed, respondent/complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.502/2016 for declaration that judgment and decree in O.S.No.1234/2002 is not binding on the respondent. In order to create a ground in the said suit, a private complaint in PCR No.500/2015 has been filed making false and baseless allegations that the blank signed stamp papers were used for concocting false Agreement of sale.
4. Undisputedly, Agreement of sale dated 20.06.2002 was the subject matter in O.S.No.1234/2002. I have perused the judgment and decree passed in the O.S.No.1234/2002, wherein at para 3 thereof it is recorded as under:
“That in response to the suit summons defendant has appeared by engaging his counsel, but thereafter he has not chosen to file written statement inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. However on 17-4-2003 the defendant has filed a consent memo consenting to decree the plaintiffs suit since he has already received the entire sale consideration and he has no objections to decree the suit in favour of plaintiff.”
It is a matter of record that, pursuant to the said judgment and decree, a sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner through process of court on 15.01.2005. The instant proceedings are initiated in the year 2016 by filing a private complaint against the petitioner making allegations of forgery and fabrication of the alleged agreement of sale. There is nothing on record to show that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court has been set aside or any appeal has been filed by the respondent/complainant. He has filed independent suit for declaration. The assertions made in the said suit have no bearing on the allegations made in the complaint since, judgment and decree passed by the civil court has remained intact till date. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raked up by the respondent/complainant after a lapse of 10 years from the date of execution of sale deed, there is no reason to permit the respondent/complainant to invoke criminal process during pendency of the said suit. In that view of the matter, criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner, being patently illegal and abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Order dated 31.12.2015 and all consequent proceedings taken in C.C.No.626/2016 (PCR No.500/2015) on the file of II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondent/complainant to take appropriate action against the petitioner on the same cause of action depending on the final result of the civil suit in O.S.No.502/2016.
Sd/- JUDGE SV