IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6143/2013 BETWEEN 1. SMT. SARITHA.M W/O SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 5TH ‘B’ CROSS, NEAR KARNATAKA STORE, CHIKKABANASAWADI, BANGALORE CITY.
2. SRI KARAN S/O K MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NO.18/7, SILVER JUBILEE PARK, CROSS ROAD, P P LANE, NAGARATHPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI H P LEELADHAR, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASUR GATE PS, BANGALORE - 560 002.
2. SREEVALSON N, S/O NARAYAN NAYAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.91/103, BALAJI COMPLEX, SARDAR PATRAPPA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1, SRI RAVISHANKAR.S, ADV. FOR R2 – ABSENT.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.223/13 OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.223/13 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 420, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent no.1. Counsel for respondent no.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments. Perused the record.
3. Respondent no.2 lodged a report before the Halasurgate Police on 27.3.2013 based on which, the aforesaid Crime No.223/13 is registered against the petitioners and others. According to the complainant, on 17.7.2013 at about 1.30 p.m. when he was working at his office, petitioners and some others barged into the premises and threatened him to get out of the premises. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 relying on some fictitious documents titled `dissolution of partnership firm’ dated 1.12.2013 asserted to be the proprietor of the firm and issued threats to the complainant.
4. The contention of the petitioners is that, one N.Sridhar and Umesh had formed a partnership firm called M/s.Cosmic Telesystem on 24.4.2004 having its place of business at No.91/103, 1st Floor, Balaji Complex Sadar Patrappa Road, Bengaluru-02 as per the deed of partnership and subsequently by a deed of retirement dated 24.12.2011 one of the partners namely Sri N.Sridhar retired from the firm and thereafter first petitioner herein entered into partnership with T.Umesh on 02.07.2012. By a subsequent document, the aforesaid T.Umesh retired from the firm whereafter, petitioner no.1 has been running the office in the said premises as a sole proprietor thereof. The petitioners have produced Annexure-G the registration certificate of establishment issued by the Labour Department which discloses the name of petitioner no.1 as the owner of M/s.Cosmic Telesystems, No.91/103, 1st Floor, Balaji Complex, Sadar Patrappa Road, Bangalore-02. The petitioners have also produced the copies of papers such as pay-orders and bank pass book to show the payments made to the erstwhile partnership firm while restoring the proprietorship firm. These documents disclose that the premises in question is in the actual possession and enjoyment of petitioner no.1.
5. Though in the complaint it is stated that petitioner no.1 has fabricated some of the documents such as partnership deed dated 1.2.2013, respondent no.2 has not controverted the assertions made by the petitioner that she has acquired right over the property by virtue of the aforesaid documents. Under the above circumstances, allegations made in the complaint on the face of it appear to be false and baseless. Petitioner no.1. being the lawful owner or the property referred in the complaint cannot trespass into his own property. Eventhough the complainant has alleged that he was the partner of the firm M/s.Cosmic Telesystems, complainant has not produced any document either before the Police or before this Court to show his right or interest over the property in question.
6. In the above circumstance, the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it suggest that, in order to lay claim over the property in question, the instant complaint has been lodged. The complainant has not disputed the documents produced by the petitioners. Further, the complainant has not produced any document in support of his right or ownership over the property in question to controvert the contention of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the allegations made against the petitioners do not give rise to any criminal prosecution of the petitioners. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am of the clear view that complainant has abused the process of Court by setting law into motion with an oblique motive to lay claim over the property in question. In that view of the matter, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
7. For the reasons stated supra, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.223/13 before respondent-Police in so far as petitioners are concerned, are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR