IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2736 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIRAJU A.
SON OF LATE APPAIAH @ APPAYANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.150 WHITE HOUSE CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 067 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI A.T. MALLAYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KADUGODI POLICE STATION BANGALORE – 560 067 2. KUM. MANJUSHRI DAUGHTER OF LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3. SMT. AHALYA WIFE OF LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF NO.51, 3RD CROSS CHACOLATE FACTORY ROAD JAYANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 029 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.61/2018, DATED 11.03.2018, BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE – C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri A.T. Mallaya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the Police on 20.02.2018 alleging that petitioner had misappropriated a part consideration amount that complainant and her mother (respondent No.3) were entitled to receive. Police registered the complaint as NCR.No.106/2018. Subsequently, on 11.03.2018, respondent No.3 filed another complaint which was registered as FIR No.61/2018 in Kadugodi Police station, wherein it is alleged that out of Rs.20,00,000/- which was deposited in her bank account, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- had been given to the petitioner. In addition, certain amount has also been paid to his advocate. In substance, the case of both respondents No.2 and 3 is that their property was sold with the assistance of the petitioner and a portion of the consideration amount which they were legitimately entitled to receive and retain has been taken away by the petitioner. It is also alleged that respondent No.3 was threatened and that she has recorded the conversation between the parties which would incriminate the petitioner.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner has arranged for sale of the property in question and in the process, he is entitled for certain compensation and he has legitimately received the same.
4. The complaint averments allege certain criminal acts against the petitioner. Matter is under investigation. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere at this stage, by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV