IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6980/2016 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION No.6928/2016 IN CRL.P.No.6980/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.B.L.NAGENDRA PRASAD S/O C.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA SHASTHRI AGED MAJOR, R/AT No.29/A 9TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560080. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY-560077.
2. SMT. B.G.GIRIJA D/O LATE SRI.GOVINDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
3. SMT.B.G.MANJULA D/O LATE SRI.GOVINDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
4. SRI B.G.NAGARAJU S/O LATE SRI.GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
5. SRI B.G.VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
6. SMT.PADMAVATHI.B.G., D/O LATE SRI GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
7. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SRI SUDHAKARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
8. SMT.MAMATHA D/O LATE SRI SUDHAKARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
9. SRI S.MAHESH S/O LATE SRI SUDHAKARA SWAMY R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADV. FOR SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADV. FOR R2- TO R-9.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN PCR. No.8315/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CMM, BANGALORE IN CR.NO.160/2016 OF SAMPIGEHALLI P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 465, 468, 471, 474, 420, 506B, 120B OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.No.6928/2016:
BETWEEN:
SMT.H.A.KAVITHA D/O SRI ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT No.232, MATHRU KRUPA HADADUR, K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560066. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY-560077.
2. SMT. B.G.GIRIJA D/O LATE SRI.GOVINDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
3. SMT.B.G.MANJULA D/O LATE SRI.GOVINDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
4. SRI B.G.NAGARAJU S/O LATE SRI.GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
5. SRI B.G.VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
6. SMT.PADMAVATHI.B.G., D/O LATE SRI GOPAL SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
7. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SRI SUDHAKARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
8. SMT.MAMATHA D/O LATE SRI SUDHAKARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036.
9. SRI S.MAHESH S/O LATE SRI SUDHAKARA SWAMY R/AT No.24, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADV. FOR SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADV. FOR R2- TO R-9.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN PCR. No.8315/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CMM, BANGALORE IN CR.NO.160/2016 OF SAMPIGEHALLI P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 465, 468, 471, 474, 420, 506[B], 120[B] OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ADMISSION ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners [accused Nos.1 and 2] and learned counsel for respondents/complainants and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the records.
2. The criminal process is initiated at the instance of the respondents on the allegations that the petitioners herein forged and concocted General Power of Attorney in the name of their ancestors Sri.Gopala Swamy and Govinda Swamy and on the strength of the said General Power of Attorney executed registered sale deed dated 03.03.2015.
3. In the complaint, vague allegations are made which read as under:
“05. The Accused No.1 herein perhaps had known the fathers of the Complainant’s side namely Mr. Govindaswamy, Gopalaswamy and Sudhakaraswamy and taking advantage of their gullible status and innocence, he appears to have got some papers signed from them or has fabricated some documents in the nature of power of attorney or such other documents and has attempted to siphon off the Subject Property from them. He had even developed friendly relationships with the Complainants side as if a well-wisher giving them some financial assistance by way of hand loans etc., and ensured that his real intentions of gulping off the Subject Property was suppressed. He also adopted a play of divide and rule by separately handling the family members of the Govinda Swamy, Gopala Swamy and Sudhakar Swamy. While he could maneuever some of the family members, other did know what his nasty intentions were and therefore, had kept him at a distance.
07. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, the fathers of the Complainant’s side viz., Mr.Govindaswamy, Gopalaswamy and Sudhakaraswamy passed away on different occasions. Fortunately, as was disclosed by the records, till their death any forged documents in the form of GPA etc./, as if executed by them were not put to use! It is also pertinent to mention here that the active participation of the Accused No.1 in the capacity of Defendant by way of filing written statement etc., in a partition suit filed by some of the Complainant side members, further made it obvious that the Accused No.1 always had the vile intentions to knock off the Subject Property by making illegal use of doctored documents.
08. When the matter stood thus, shockingly it came to the notice of the Complainant’s side that though none of the Kathadar’s viz., Mr.Govindaswamy, Gopalaswamy and Sudhakaraswamy were alive and pre-decesed, the Accused No.1 in criminal conspiracy and collusion with the Accused No.2 had brought in to existence a registered sale deed dated 3.3.2015 bearing No.MLS-1-02113- 2015-16 at the office of the Sub-Registrar of Malleshwaram, Bangalore as if executed by the Accused No.1 in the capacity of the GPA holder of Mr. Gopalaswamy and Sudhakaraswamy and some of the children of Mr. Govindaswamy in favour of the Accused No.2 herein namely Smt.K.A.Kavitha.”
4. The complaint is silent as to when Gopalaswamy and Govindaswamy passed away. It is also not clear as to when the alleged General Power of Attorney is stated to have been executed in the name of accused No.1. Suppression of these material facts itself indicate that by making vague and general allegations, respondents have sought to initiate criminal action against the petitioners. Be that it may, the material produced by the petitioners which has remained uncontraverted by the respondents reveal that an agreement of sale was executed in favour of accused No.1 by the wife and children of late Late Govindaswamy and Gopalaswamy and Sudhakaraswamy on 03.12.2003. It discloses exchange of consideration and also makes reference to the payment by way of cheques. Pursuant to the said agreement, a power of attorney is stated to have been executed by all the aforesaid executants authorizing the attorney Sri.B.L.Nagendra Prasad [accused No.1] to deal with the said properties.
5. It is also relevant to note that during the subsistence of the aforesaid agreement, the subject properties were notified for acquisition for formation of Arkavathi Layout. However, the properties were later de- notified in the year 2014 and subsequent to de- notification, accused No.1 entered into a written agreement with accused No.2 on 06.09.2014 and pursuant to that agreement executed a registered sale deed on 03.03.2015. It also needs to be mentioned that a partition suit was filed between the family members of complainant seeking partition of the above properties. In the said suit i.e., O.S.No.7138/2014 accused No.1 was also made a party which indicates that the right asserted by accused No.1 based on the aforesaid agreement of sale and power of attorney was well within the knowledge of the complainant as back as in 2014 itself.
6. It is also a matter of record that in view of the interference caused by the respondents herein, accused No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.25816/2016 for declaration of his title to the subject properties based on the registered sale deed obtained by him. Even in the said suit, the complainants are made parties. The instant complaint is filed only in the year 2016 making bald and vague allegations that the aforesaid transactions have been entered into by accused Nos.1 and 2 by creating a false general power of attorney. Undeniably, the dispute raised by the respondents is seized by the Civil Court. Apart from the delay in initiating criminal action by the respondents, the facts averred in the complaint go to show that legal transactions in respect of the said properties are not challenged by the respondents in any Competent Court of law.
7. Even otherwise, the averments made in the complaint clearly disclose that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The allegations made in complaint are dislodged by the written agreement and registered document. The Civil Court is seized of the matter. Under the said circumstances, invocation of criminal process against the petitioners is nothing but malafide, vexatious and is calculated to coerce the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to agree to the terms of the respondents. In that view of the matter, entire process initiated by the respondents being malafide, ulteriorly motivated and abuse of the process of Court, cannot be allowed to continue.
For the above reasons, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners arising out of PCR No.8315/2016 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and FIR in Crime No.160/2016 of Sampigehalli police station for the offences under Sections 465. 468, 471, 474, 420, 506B, 120B of IPC are quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action against the petitioners subject to the results of the civil suits pending in respect of the same cause of action.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.