IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6871 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MR. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE GANGACHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A BAICHENAHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUKU, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572120.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF HEBBUR POLICE STATION, TUMKUR CITY. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MR. CHIKKAVENKATIAH, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/A BAICHENAHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUKU, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572120 (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN CR.NO.112/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND V J.M.F.C., TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 420, 465, 504, 447, 468 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by initiation of proceedings in Crime No.112/2019 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and V J.M.F.C., Tumakuru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420, 504, 465, 468, 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC whereby the criminal law has been set in motion on the premise that the complainant’s daughter had entered into a registered agreement of sale in respect of the land measuring 33 guntas, out of 1 acre 26 guntas of land situated at Amanikere village and that the agreement of sale was executed in favour of the complainant’s daughter on 21.09.2015 by the title holders. Despite several requests made by the complainant and his daughter, the title holders omitted to execute the registered sale deed and aggrieved by the same, the daughter of the complainant instituted a suit in OS No.726/2016 and it is submitted that the trial Court was also pleased to restrain the defendants therein, that is her vendors, from alienating the suit schedule property by order dated 28.10.2016.
3. A reading of the complaint also reveals that the complainant had also issued a public notice putting the petitioner on notice with regard to their claims over the said property and despite that a General Power of Attorney came to be executed in favour of the instant petitioner, who acting on the said General Power of Attorney executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 06.10.2015.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that in view of the registered sale deed having been executed in his favour and he being the title holder, question of him trespassing over his property is irrational and unimaginable. He would contend that he being the absolute owner of the property respondent-police have registered the FIR and entertained the complaint of the second respondent.
5. Admittedly, a suit has been filed on 31.08.2016 much prior to the sale in favour of the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may. The complainant is claiming possession under the registered sale agreement. The petitioner on the contrary is basing his claim on the registered sale deed. The issue as to whether the petitioner was put in possession or the complainant was put in possession is a question of fact and the same requires to be adjudicated after a proper trial.
7. This Court in exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C would not venture to adjudicate a disputed question of fact and the factual matrix of the case. A question also arises as to whether the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser or not?
Hence, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are for the disposal of the instant petition only.
Sd/- JUDGE GH