IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1003/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI MADANKUMAR BERMECHA S/O LATE MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.102, AP RESIDENCY PUTTENAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR 7TH STAGE BANGALORE-560078 2. SRI P.MAHAVEERCHAND S/O LATE C.PANNALAL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.14, PARKER BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, NO.12, CAVARJI PATEL STREET FORT, MUMBAI-400001 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.SAMPATH, ADV. FOR SRI R.NATARAJ, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODE POLICE STATION BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560081 2. SRI B.N.THIMMAREDDY S/O LATE NARAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560081 SINCE DEAD BY LRs 2(a) SMT.KANAKARATHNAMMA D/O LATE B.N.THIMMA REDDY W/O SRI VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT No.214, THIRUMALA PETROL BANK ROAD, BOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE-560099 2(b) SMT.JALAJAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE B.N.THIMMA REDDY W/O LATE BHADRAREDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT MANJUNATHA TOWERS, HUSKUR GATE, VEERASANDRA BANGALORE-560100 2(c) SRI B.T.NAGARAJ REDDY S/O LATE B.T.DAYANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT RANJITHA FARM, BOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560099.
2(d) SRI DAYANANDA S/O LATE B.N.THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT No.207/2, RANJITHA FARM, BOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560099.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.06.2019) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R-1; SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-2(a to c); SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R-2(d).) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN C.C.NO.17/13 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, ANEKAL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
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 alleged offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. The case of the complainant is that he is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.Nos.44 and 45 totally measuring 4 acres 19 ½ guntas. He got the said property converted into non-agricultural purposes and thereafter formed a layout and alienated 19 sites in favour of different persons and retained 2 sites bearing Sy.Nos.44 and 45.
4. The further averments made in the complaint read as under:
“I write to state that neither of the three of them are owner or the General Power of Attorney holders in respect of the schedule property and the entire play has been played to deprive me of my legitimate right over the said sites and to gain wrongfully.
I state that the Katha, Tax Paid Receipt, Mutation, Conversion Order, Approved Layout Plan and other revenue records stand in my name even at the time of executing the fraudulent rectification deeds bearing Nos.3218/06 and 3219/06 dated 26.04.2006 and fraudulent sale deeds bearing Nos.3358 and 3366 dated 27.04.2006 in the Sub- registrar, Anekal, executed by the above three criminals.”
5. A reading of the above averments go to show that in respect of the properties in question, two registered rectification deeds have come into existence in the year 2006. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has challenged the said sale deeds before Court or Authorities till date. Under the said circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that these documents have been registered in respect of the site Nos.44 and 45 has no basis. Even assuming that the said registered documents have been executed in respect of site Nos.44 and 45 belonging to the second respondent, the said issue cannot be investigated or decided by the Criminal Court. Even though the complainant has asserted that he is the owner of 4 acres 19 ½ guntas of land, the complaint is totally silent as to how the complainant acquired title to the said properties. On the other hand, the complainant himself has admitted that in respect of the aforesaid properties, the sale deeds have been registered in the name of the petitioners herein. The complaint therefore does not disclose any ingredients of criminal offences much less an offence under 420 of IPC. Even otherwise, a reading of the complaint indicates that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The averments made in the complaint even if accepted on its face value, do not make out the ingredients of any criminal offences much less an offence under Section 420 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the petitioners being malafide, vexatious amounting to abuse of process of Court, cannot be permitted to continue.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The charge sheet laid against the petitioners in C.C.No.17/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.