IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1460 OF 2016 Between:
1. Smt. Sharadamma, W/o Rajanna, Aged about 51 years, 2. Sri.Rajanna, S/o Chowdappa, Aged about 59 years, Both are residing at No.97/1, Near KTG College, 40 feet road, Srigandadakaval, Viswaneedum Post, Bangalore – 560 091. …Petitioners (By Sri.Siddharath B Muchandi, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By the Police of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bangalore – 560 091.
2. Sri.R.Hanumegowda, S/o late Rammanna, Aged about 61 years, R/o No.132, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Syndicate Bank Layout, Near Herohalli Village, Bangalore – 560 091. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1; Sri.A.C.Balaraj, Advocate for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.532/2015 in PCR No.7942/2015 on the file of VII Addl.C.M.M, Bangalore against the petitioners herein for the offences P/U/S 506, 504, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468, 463, 464 of IPC etc.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.532/2005. The allegation against the petitioners is that they purchased an item of property comprised in Sy.No.97 of Sunkadakatte, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, from accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of which a partition deed was entered into between accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant.
2. Undeniably, petitioners herein were not the parties to the partition deed said to have been entered into between accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that at the time of execution of sale deed, the petitioners were aware of the partition deed which was scheduled to be registered on the same day in the afternoon.
3. Merely because accused no.4 was a consenting witness to the partition deed, the contents of the said document cannot be ascribed to petitioner no.1/accused no.4. Moreover, petitioner no.1/accused no.4 is neither a beneficiary nor an executant of the said document. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the prosecution to prosecute petitioner no.1/accused no.4. Likewise, in the absence of any definite allegations against petitioner no.2/ accused no.5 that with specific knowledge and intention to dupe the complainant, he has purchased the said property in connivance with the other accused, petitioner no.2/accused no.5 also cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences under Sections 506, 504, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468, 463 and 464 of IPC. In view of the above facts, the prosecution instituted against petitioner no.2/accused no.5 for the alleged offences is legally untenable and an abuse of process of court.
4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.532/2015 arising out of PCR No.7942/2015 are quashed only in respect of petitioner nos.1 and 2/accused nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The proceedings shall continue against accused Nos.1 to 3 in accordance with law.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not come in the way of parties for vindication of their rights before the trial court.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-