IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4220 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SOUMYA ARAVIND SITARAMAN W/O SRI ARAVIND SITARAMAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.25, NIMBEKAIPURA ROAD BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 049 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE AND SHRI. S.B. SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. AMMAYYA W/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NIMBEKAIPURA ROAD BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 049 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI PRADEEP NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.959/14 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.C.J.M., BANGALORE DIST., BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS SHE IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri S.G. Bhagavan, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Naik, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Respondent filed a complaint in PCR No.48/2009 before the Additional CJM, Bengaluru, alleging that accused No.1 to 11 had fabricated some documents in respect of a property belonging to her and sold the same in favour of the accused No.12, who is the petitioner herein. Learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Police, after investigation have filed ‘B’ Report and the same was challenged by the complainant. After recording sworn statement, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner, adverting to the complaint, pointed out that petitioner herein is accused No.12 and all overt-acts are alleged against accused No.1 to 11. He particularly drew the attention of the Court to Paragraph No.9 of the complaint and pointed out that complainant has specifically stated that after obtaining Khata in respect of her land, accused No.1 to 11 have sold the property in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, he prays for quashing the proceedings so far as petitioner is concerned.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that petitioner ought to have been careful in examining the title and having purchased the property, she is also liable for criminal action.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
6. Paragraph No.9 of the complaint reads as follows:
“The Complainant submits that after obtaing the Katha in respect of the Schedul land, the accused No. 1 to 11 sold the property bearing Sy.No. 26/3, measuring 1 acre 18 guntas, situated at Nimbekaipura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East taluk, in favour of the 12th accused on 4-4-2002, vide registered as document No. 336 / 2002-03, Book-I, Vol. 2433 in Pages 200 to 208, dated 5.4.2002 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore-36.” (sic) (Emphasis supplied) 7. While taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process, the learned Magistrate has recorded thus:
“…By taking undue advantage of the complainant’s illiteracy, taking the name of his brother late Venkateshappa and father of Accused No.9 to 11 entered in the Revenue Records, even though the complainant is from a changing the Katha they have sold the property in Sy.No.26/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Nimbekayipura in favour of 12th accused by way of Registered Sale Deed before the Sub- Registrar, K.R.Puram.” (sic) (Emphasis supplied) 8. Complainant’s specific case is that accused No.1 to 11 had fabricated the documents of a property belonging to her and sold the same to the petitioner. Learned Magistrate has also recorded in similar lines. No overt-act is alleged against the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the property.
9. In the circumstances, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Resultantly, proceedings in C.C.No.959/2012 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV