IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5840 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT S KALAI SELVI W/O SRI M SUBBA RAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SRI M SUBBA RAM S/O LATE PONNU, AGED 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 2508, 10TH MAIN, ‘D’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 (BY SRI: M.K. GIRISH, ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONERS 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHI PALYA POLICE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI R VENKATARAMAIAH S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT THIGALARAPALYA, 16TH CROSS, BALAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: N.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE FOR MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETRS. INITIATED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY IN CR.NO.35/2015 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE AND C.C.NO.23238/2015 BY FILING THE CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419 AND 420 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF V A.C.M.M., BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the purchaser of immovable property comprised in Sy.No.63/3 of Sunkadakatte Gramathana, Srigandada Kaval Dhakle, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The case of the prosecution is that, said property was purchased by respondent No.2 under a notarized GPA on 28.10.1999 and since then, he has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property by constructing a sheet house and has obtained electricity and water connection to the said property.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, with intent to cheat respondent No.2, a fake sale deed was got executed in favour of petitioner No.1 in the year 2000 and the said property was further alienated on 24.06.2014 for Rs.31,50,000/-.
4. A bare reading of the charge sheet and the documents produced along with it indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Respondent No.2 himself claims to be the owner of property under a notarized General Power of Attorney and the said General Power of Attorney is stated to have been executed by the attorney of original owner. Under the said circumstances, respondent No.2 is required to establish his right, title to the said properties through the mode known to law.
5. Undeniably, petitioner No.1 is the purchaser of the above mentioned property under a registered sale deed executed in the year 2000. There is nothing on record to show that the said sale deed has been challenged or questioned by respondent No.2 till date. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 herself has filed a suit in O.S.No.8641/2014 for injunction and that said suit was filed much before lodging of FIR against petitioners. In any case, since the allegation made in the complaint do not make out ingredients of criminal offence much less offences under sections 419 and 420 of IPC, in my view, the prosecution of petitioner No.1 cannot be sustained.
6. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, there are absolutely no allegations constituting the ingredients of the above offences. He is made a party to the charge sheet solely for the reason of being the husband of petitioner No.1. Therefore, considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the clear view that, criminal process has been abused by respondent No.2 and hence, the impugned proceedings cannot be permitted to continue.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Charge sheet in C.C.No.23238/2015 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom pending on the file of V ACMM, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss