IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NOS.6067-6070 OF 2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.S. KRISHNA S/O SRI K.N.S. RAGHAVACHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO 818/4, ” VANASUNDARA” 12TH MAIN, 5TH B CROSS, MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE 560 073 2. SRI B S SREENIVASA S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO 43, 5TH A CROSS, MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE 560 073 3. SRI NARAYANI S/O SRI URUTI RAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO 1153, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN 17TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE 560 010 4. SRI SHANKARE GOWA S/O SRI RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO 819/8, 12TH MAIN 5TH B CROSS BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE 560073 (BY SRI: M SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT D C COMPOUND, BANGALORE 560 009 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 4. THE M.E.I EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCITY LTD., SITUATED AT MEI COMPLEX, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 022 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B N VENKATACHALAIAH 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PEENYA POLICE STATION YESHAWANTHAPURA SUB DIVISION BANGALORE CITY CIRCLE BANGALORE-560020.
8. SRI B K RAMAKRISHNA S/O DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEAS R/AT BAGALAGUNTE NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE 560073 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 & R5-R7 R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI: B.S.RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R8-ABSENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA R/W UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE INTERIM ORDER VIDE ANN-T1 DATED 22.8.2013 MADE IN S.L.P.[C] NO.11364/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE CASE BINDS ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND DOES NOT BIND THE PETITIONERS;
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN P.C.R. NO.26387/2013 FILED BY THE R-8 VIDE ANN-A DATED 30.12.2013 AND THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2014 VIDE ANN-A1 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FIR FILED BY THE R-7 POLICE IN CRIME NO.19/2014 VIDE ANN-B DATED 8.1.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE. DIRECT THE R-6 AND 7, TO GIVE THE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE GIVEN TO THESE PETITIONS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have questioned the initiation of proceedings against them in PCR No.26387/2013 (Annexure-A) and the FIR filed consequent thereto in Cr.No.19/2014 under sections 420, 418, 421, 423, 441 and 506 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 7 seeks time. Prayer rejected.
Respondent No.4 is served and unrepresented.
Counsel for respondent No.8 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Eighth respondent filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. seeking action against the petitioners and other accused persons for the above offences. The material allegations made in the complaint are that respondent No.8 is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.3/4 situated at Bagalakunte, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 1 acre 04 guntas. Accused Nos.1 to 4 executed a general power of attorney in favour of accused No.5 on 06.03.2004 in respect of Sy.No.3/5 and 3/4 of Bagalakunte, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Even though there were disputes regarding title and possession in respect of the said properties, accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with each other created documents and executed sale deeds in favour of some persons who inturn executed sale deeds in favour of accused No.6 -10. It is further stated that accused have created bogus documents and have sold the sites even without they being in possession of those sites, thereby causing loss to the complainant.
3. The complaint contains general allegations to the effect that accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion created documents and executed sale deeds in favour of some persons. The complaint does not refer to the respective transactions. The records produced by the petitioners indicate that the properties comprised in Sy.No.3/4 belonged to one Chikkakempaiah. It was notified for acquisition and Preliminary notification dated 03.05.1988 was issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acqusiition Act. Said preliminary notification was followed by final notification under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29.04.1989. The subsequent chronology of events detailed hereinbelow would show the following:-
20.11.1992 The BDA approved the Layout plan 24.12.1993 The Govt. took Possession 3.1.1994 The Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by LAO. acquiring various items of land situated at Bagalagunte Village.
19.1.1994 1994 The Govt. Issued a De-notification under Section 48(1) of the L.A.Act.
The Respondent No.4 Society filed Writ Petition in WP.No.3502/1994 before this Hon’ble Court, challenging the said De-Notification.
20.5.1994 Possession of the land was handed over to the 4th Respondent Society by the Govt.
3.1.1996 This Court allowed the Writ Petition in WP.No.3502/1994 and quashed the De- Notification.
5.7.2003 & 22.1.2004 18.8.2003 & 9.4.2004 6.11.2003, 11.6.2006, 30.6.2010 & 14.12.2011 The Society allotted the sites and executed the sale deeds in favour of vendors of the petitioners and others The Society issued possession certificates.
Petitioners have purchased the sites from the allottees.
22.12.2011 The BBMP issued Khatha Certificates after collecting the property Tax.
3.11.2010 The petitioners made a complaint to the police, seeking protection and to take action against the respondents No.10 to 15.
2012 The Respondent No.8 filed original suit in OS.No.8892/2012, praying for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed on 15.12.2016.
21.2.2013 The City Civil Court re-called the interim order, which was granted earlier.
2013 Respondent No.8 filed a Writ Petition in WP.No.12841/2013, seeking police protection and the same was dismissed on 12.06.2014.
2013 Respondent No.8 filed a original suit in OS.No.26497/2013, praying for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed on 15.12.2016.
30.12.2013 Respondent No.8 filed a private complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
4.1.2014 The VII ACMM directed the 7th respondent Police to investigate and submit a Report.
8.1.2014 Respondent No.7 Police registered FIR in Crime No.19/2014 against the petitioners.
The above facts clearly indicate that the petitioners herein are the purchasers of aforesaid properties under the respective sale deeds. The complainant has not disclosed his title or interest over the said properties. Under the said circumstances, there is no cause of action for the complainant to initiate criminal process against the petitioners. Even assuming that there is any defect in the title of the properties, the same can be a subject matter of a civil suit and cannot be adjudicated by criminal process based on the allegations made by the complainant. The allegations made in the private complaint, even if accepted uncontroverted do not constitute the ingredients of any of the above offences. Without considering any of these facts and without applying its mind to the facts of the case, the learned magistrate has mechanically and blindly directed the police to investigate the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Even the order of reference made by the learned magistrate indicates that the learned magistrate has not even bothered to look into the averments made in the application. Relevant order dated 04.01.2014 reads as under:-
04.01.14 Compt. present Perused the complaint and documents.
Complaint is referred under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to SHO of Peenya P.S. to investigate and report. By 11/4.
Sd/-
In this context, it may be apposite to refer to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAKSUD SAIYED vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the requirement of application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is of paramount importance.
In the light of the above discussion, respondent No.8 having abused criminal process by lodging false and frivolous complaint with malafide intention, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Proceedings in PCR No.26387/2013 pending on the file of 7th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-