IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5891 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Moggasitaramaiah S/o Late Venkataramana, Aged 49 years, R/at No.401, Rashi Splendor Raghunathapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk.
2. Sri. Papanna S/o Late Honnappa, Aged 52 years, R/at Muthakadahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
3. Sri.S. Nagaraj S/o Late Shamanna, Aged 39 years, R/at Doddajala Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. …Petitioners (By Sri. B. Ramesh, Advocate) AND:
1. State by Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District-561 203. Rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. P. Sathyanarayan S/o Late Y. Pillappa, Aged 59 years, R/at No.649/847, Cinema Road, Doddaballapura Town, Doddaballapura Taluk Bengaluru Rural District-561 203 ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-1; Sri. Tomy Sebastian, Senior Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.270/2015 in PCR No.176/2015 by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the offence P/U/S 471, 466, 34, 120B, 144, 420, 465, 467, 463, 464 of IPC on the file of Addl. C.J. and J.M.F.C., Doddaballapura.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of FIR against them in Crime No.270/2015, under Section 466, 120B, 144, 420 465, 467, 463, 464 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
3. A piece of immovable property measuring 2 acres 18 guntas comprised in Sy.No.61/3, situated at Adinarayna Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru, belonged to accused No.1. According to petitioners, accused No.1 entered into an agreement dated 11.03.2010 with petitioner No.1/accused No.2 agreeing to sell the said property to petitioner No.1/accused No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and received advance consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is alleged that suppressing the prior execution of Agreement of Sale, accused No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of complainant- respondent No.2 on 06.12.2013. According to petitioners, on coming to know about the registration of the said property, petitioner No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.510/2014 making the complainant/respondent No.2 as well as accused No.1, party to the said suit. The said suit is pending before the Civil Court.
4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2-complainant filed a private complaint on 27.06.2015 inter alia contending that the agreement of sale dated 11.03.2010, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.510/2015 is a forged and fabricated document and manipulated by the petitioners. In the private complaint, respondent No.2 alleged that the said agreement of sale dated 11.03.2010 was embossed by the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, Bengaluru in P.B.No.6935, but the complainant enquired and got information from RTI Act on 09.06.2015 from the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, that embossing and frankling done on the document was created by the accused persons.
5. From the above narration, it is clear that petitioner No.1/accused No.2 claims right under an agreement of sale said to have been executed by accused No.1 in his favour on 11.03.2010. Undisputedly, a suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale is filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.2 and the same is pending consideration of the Civil Court. The instant private complaint is filed in the year 2015 alleging that the agreement of sale put forward by petitioner No.1 is a forged and fabricated document.
6. Undeniably, complainant is not a party to the said agreement of sale. No doubt, the complainant claims to have purchased the said property under a registered sale deed from accused No.1, yet, the petitioners having claimed their right under a prior agreement of sale and the lis having been seized by the Civil Court much before the initiation of criminal action by respondent No.2, it would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow the respondent No.2 to continue with the criminal process.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that under the agreement dated 11.03.2010, petitioner No.1 has paid substantial consideration and has sought for specific performance of the said agreement. The contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that subsequently registration of the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 herein by accused No.1, appears to have been calculated to create a ground to defeat the suit filed by petitioner No.1 in O.S.No.510/2014. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute in question being purely civil in nature, invocation of criminal process during the pendency of the civil case cannot be permitted.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the complainant/respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioners on the same set of allegations subject to the final result of the civil suit.
With the above observations, P.C.R.No.176/2015 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura and consequent registration of FIR in Crime No.270/2015 are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC