IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO.7149 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SHABANA KHANUM W/O.A.MAQSOOD KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.25/1, HAINES ROAD, BANGALORE. PIN-560051.
2. SMT. RUKSANA KAUSER W/O.A.MASOOD KHAN, R/AT NO.:25/1, HAINES ROAD, BANGALORE. PIN-560051.
(BY SRI.K. B. K. SWAMY – ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, PN-5600... (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, …PETITIONERS BANGALORE.) 2. SRI MAHESH PRASAD H S/O.LATE K.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT.NO.:55, ANUGRAHA, 2ND MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGARA 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE – ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; SRI Y. HARIPRASAD – ADV., FOR R-2 - ABSENT ) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE IN PCR NO.15224/2013. CR.NO.435/2013 REGISTERED BY MICO LAYOUT P.S., BANGALORE CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in Cr.No.435/2013 arising out of PCR No.15224/2013 on the file of VII ACMM, Bangalore.
2. The case is registered against the petitioners and two other accused persons based on the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant is the absolute owner of site Nos.2 and 3 situate in Madivala village, Bangalore South Taluk. The said Sy.No.77/3 originally belonged to one Sri R.N.Subramani Naidu/accused No.1. Accused No.1 formed an approved private layout consisting of sites No.1 to 48 in the said property. Accused No.1 through his power of Attorney Holder/accused No.2, executed a sale deed on 04.07.2003 by receiving a consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- from the complainant. After the purchase of the said property, the complainant was put in possession of the said site. However, later he came to know that accused Nos.3 and 4 were constructing building in the very same property. He objected the same and filed suits in O.S.No.6755/2012 and O.S.No.6756/2012 before the City Civil Court for declaration of title and ownership of the properties. In the said suit, temporary injunction was granted restraining accused Nos.3 and 4 from alienating or letting out the properties to anybody.
3. From the averments made in the complaint, it can be gathered that accused Nos.3 and 4 purchased site Nos.2 and 3 from the original owner Kaaleel Turabi in the year 1999. Therefore, it is evident that accused Nos. 3 and 4 are claiming independent title over the suit properties having acquired ownership thereto much earlier to the title acquired by respondent No.2. It is an admitted fact that, respondent No.2 himself has filed suit O.S.No.6755/2012 and O.S.No.6756/2012 for declaration of his right and title in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Though it is alleged that when respondent No.2 objected the construction of building there was threat to him by accused Nos.1 and 2, the said allegation appears to be made in the context of laying claim to the properties, which is already seized by the Civil Court. It is stated in the complaint that an injunction order is operating against accused 1 and 2 not to alienate the suit property. Therefore, merely on the basis of the alleged threat, respondent No.2 cannot convert the civil dispute into a criminal offence. The facts narrated in the complaint predominantly disclose that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and it can be adjudicated only by the Civil Court. Respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to settle personal scores with petitioners by taking recourse to criminal proceedings. As a result, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners being abuse of process of the Court cannot be allowed to continue. Hence, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Cr.No.435/2013 arising out of PCR No.15224/2013 are hereby quashed only in so far as petitioners-3 and 4 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE TL