IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8797 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.H.C.Krishnappa S/o late Chikanna Aged about 57 years R/at # 60, Jyothi Layout Kanakapura Main Road Bangalore – 560 078.
2. Smt.B.Sujatha W/o H.C.Krishnappa Aged about 54 years R/at # 60, Jyothi Layout Kanakapura Main Road Bangalore – 560 078.
(By Sri.H.C.Natraj, Advocate) AND:
1. The State by Cubbon Park Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore – 560 001.
…Petitioners 2. Venkatesh Y Yalakki, Ganigara Palya Banashankari 6th Stage IV Block, Bangalore City Karnataka – 560 062.
3. M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., A company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 Branch office at 51, HDFC House Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001 By its authorized Signatory 4. Sri.N.Narayanaswamy B.A. LL.B., Advocate and Notary No.17, Srigandha Nilaya Govindappa Layout, RMV II Stage Nagashettyhalli Bangalore – 560 094.
(By Sri.Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1 R2 served and unrepresented ...Respondents Sri.B.S.Mahendra, Advocate for R3 – absent Sri.Naveen Kumar S., Advocate for R4 - absent) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.347/2015 arising out of PCR No.11405/2015 for the alleging offence p/u/s 419, 465, 415, 416, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470 and 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC, pending on the file of VIII Addl. CMM., Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.347/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 465, 415, 416, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470 and 471 read with Section 120(B) of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 are absent.
3. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and other accused by 2nd respondent by lodging a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioners herein fabricated the loan document showing the complainant as one of the surety and thereby committed the above offences.
4. The records would disclose that accused No.1 borrowed a loan of Rs.6,40,000/- from accused No.3 – M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited in the year 2004 for which accused No.2 – Smt.Sujatha and the complainant stood as sureties. In view of the default committed by accused No.1 in repayment of said loan, accused No.3 – M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited initiated recovery proceedings against borrower as well as guarantors. The complainant was one of the defendant in O.S.No.14/2010 filed by accused No.3 – M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited. The records disclose that the said suit was ended in compromise before the Lok-adalath, in terms of which, a decree was also passed by the Civil Court. The order passed by the Civil Court reads as under:-
“Suit is decreed in terms of compromise petition.
Office is directed to draw award in terms of compromise petition making a copy of the compromise petition as part of the award.
The 1st defendant is entitled to receive all the original documents after fulfillment of the terms of the compromise and bank shall return the documents within 15 days thereof.
In view of the settlement before the Lok Adalath the plaintiff bank is entitled for refund of entire court fee subject to service charges.”
5. A reading of the aforesaid compromise discloses that accused No.1 has repaid the entire loan amount and has obtained ‘No objection Certificate’ from accused No.3. It is stated that the complainant has not challenged the said decree, as a result, the same has attained finality.
6. In the light of the above facts, the allegations made in the complaint that accused Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with each other fabricated the loan documents and have shown the complainant as guarantor is inconsistent to the decree passed by the Civil Court. The said decree has remained unchallenged. The complainant is bound by the said decree. As a result, there was no basis for the complainant to institute the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the purported allegations that the loan documents have been fabricated.
7. It is also borne on record that in the year 2015, accused Nos.1 and 2 themselves had filed a criminal complaint against the complainant and FIR was registered against the complainant and his wife in Crime No.124/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 469, 470, 471, 415, 468 of IPC. In the said circumstances, the instant complaint appears to be a sequel to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the complainant. Even otherwise, a perusal of the allegations made against the petitioners do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners. The loan documents have been proved in the manner known to law and the decree passed by the Civil Court based on the said documents has remained unchallenged. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are malafide, manifestly vexatious and amount to abuse of process of Court.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.347/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 465, 415, 416, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470 and 471 read with Section 120(B) of IPC, is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*