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.7113 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Sri.D.Nagaraju S/o R Dasappa Aged about 55 years R/at No.4, 2nd Cross Cubbonpet Bengaluru-560 002 …Petitioner (By Sri.K.N.Mohan, Adv.) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Peenya Police Station Peenya Bengaluru-560 058 2. Smt.G.Anuradha W/o Sri K.T.Govinde Gowda Aged about 53 years R/o No.341, 16th Main, M.C.Layout, Vijaynagar Bengaluru-560 040 ... Respondents (By Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-1 R-2 served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the entire proceedings in respect of the petitioner in C.C.No.9824/2010 before the VII ACMM, Bangalore and etc.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.5 in CC No.9824/2010 pending on the file of the VII Additional CMM, Bengaluru.
2. A case was registered against the petitioner and four other accused persons based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. According to the complainant, even though accused Nos.1 and 2 had sold the properties to accused Nos.4 and 5 under a registered sale deed dated 30.03.2005, the very same property, was offered for sale to the complainant by playing fraud. Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant and received an advance amount of Rs.60,000/- and failed to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant. These allegations, even if accepted in entirety, would make out the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and not against the present petitioner/accused No.5.
3. The facts depicted in the charge sheet would clearly indicate that before execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the complainant the property in question was already purchased by the petitioner herein/accused No.5. There are no allegations that the petitioner/accused No.5 has played fraud or mischief while purchasing the property in his name. Under the said circumstance, there is absolutely no basis for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
4. Merely because accused Nos.1 and 2 have cheated the complainant by executing an agreement of sale subsequent to the registration of the properties in the name of petitioner herein/accused No.5, petitioner cannot be accused of cheating. In the said circumstance, proceedings initiated against the petitioner is wholly illegal and amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in CC No.9824/2010 pending on the file of the VII Additional CMM, Bengaluru, are quashed only in so far as petitioner-accused No.5 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE TL