IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8682 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. SRI B R VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O SRI.T.S.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SMT.S.ANURADHA W/O SRI.B.R.VASUDEVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.93/232/18, OLD NO.18, PAPAREDDYPALYA VILLAGE MALLATHAHALLLI DAKHALE NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560072 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB POLICE, REP. BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU PINCODE-560056.
2. SRI.M.KALLAPPA S/O SRI.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT ADHURU GRAMA, HINDALAVADI POST ANEKAL TALUK,BENGALURU DISTRICT PINCODE-560056. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1 SRI.RAKSHIT K.N., ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11632/2015 (CR.NO.232/2013) ON THE FILE OF 9TH ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet laid against them for the offences under Sections 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP for respondent No.1.
3. Dispute between the parties pertain to a house property bearing No.18 katha No.232/1066 situated at Mallathahalli, Papareddypalya Village. Respondent No.1 is said to have purchased the said properties under a registered sale deed through the GPA holder of erstwhile owner on 30.03.2011. The owner transferred the very same properties to the petitioners herein under a registered sale deed dated 20.6.2013.
4. The case of the prosecution is that in order to defeat the rights of the complainant, who is the prior purchaser of the properties, the petitioners herein in collusion with A1 got executed a sale deed on 20.6.2013.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners were bonafide purchasers. Encumbrance certificate obtained by them before execution of the sale deed did not reflect registration of the properties in the name of respondent No.2. In view of obstruction created by respondent No.2, petitioners filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.5457/2014. In the said suit, respondent No.2 laid a counter claim seeking declaration that sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners is not binding on respondent No.2. After trial, the Civil Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners granting permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from interfering with the said properties whereas, the counter claim filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed. Under the said circumstances, there was no basis for respondent No.2 to initiate criminal action against the petitioners on the purported allegations that the sale deed in question was got executed with a view to defeat the rights of respondent No.2. The material collected by the investigating agency and the allegations made in the charge sheet do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 and 120-B of IPC. Merely on the ground that the petitioners are the purchasers of the properties, they have been implicated in the charge sheet without there being any material to show their complicity in the alleged act of cheating or conspiracy and hence prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie disclose that the factum of registration of the previous sale deed in favour of the complainant was within the knowledge of the petitioners as well as A1. As against the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.5457/2014, appeal has been filed by respondent No.2 and the same is pending. The said decree therefore has not attained finality. Under the said circumstance, there being prima facie material to show that the alleged document has been created only to defeat the rights of respondent No.2 so as to make unlawful gain by the petitioners, the allegations squarely attract the ingredients of the above offences, therefore, there is no ground to quash the impugned proceedings initiated against them.
7. Considered the submission and perused the records.
8. Encumbrance certificate relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners discloses that it was obtained for the period between 1.4.2005 to 9.4.2013 and the entry relating to the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.2 does not find place in the said encumbrance certificate. However, a copy of the encumbrance certificate produced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 discloses the entry in this regard for the relevant period. Thus, there are two inconsistent entries in the certified copies issued by the Sub Registrar’s office. Nonetheless, the facts remains, that in respect of the very same properties, parties have already taken recourse to the civil remedy and the matter is seized by the Civil Court. Though the order passed by the civil Court has not attained finality, yet having regard to the nature of the disputed documents relied on by the respective parties and the petitioners being a purchaser of the said property, in the absence of clear material to show that he was also a party to the alleged conspiracy was aware that the property in question was registered in the name of respondent No.2, criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners cannot be sustained for the present. Moreover, the alleged dispute having been seized by the Civil Court, in my view, it would be proper to quash the proceedings reserving liberty to respondent No.2 to proceed against the petitioners on the same set of allegations subject to the result of the appeal pending between the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.11632/15 pending on the file of the IX ACMM, Bengaluru, are quashed only insofar as the petitioners viz. A2 and A3 are concerned. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to proceed against the petitioners depending upon the result of the appeal pending against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5457/2014.
Sd/- JUDGE rs