IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5889 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI N SHIVAPRASAD S/O.LATE C.NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGHUVEER NILAYA, J.C.EXTENSION, VIJAYAPURA, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560100.
2. SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O.LATE DASA @ TOGUR MUNIGA @ MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI VENKATESH S/O ANNAPPA @ DODDA ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R2 & R3 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKANAHALLI KAMANAHALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562123. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI. BASAVARAJAIAH. N , ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4942/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is Accused No.21 in C.C. No.4942 of 2013 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. The said proceedings were instituted based on the private complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3 herein and the learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; on completing investigation, charge sheet came to be laid against 23 accused persons under Section 193, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 of I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 19 in collusion with accused Nos.20 to 23 fabricated the revenue documents and on the strength of those documents executed the registered sale deeds in favour of accused Nos.20 to 23.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2007. In respect of the very same property, respondents No.2 and 3 along with others filed a civil suit in O.S. No.1248 of 2008 for declaration and cancellation of the sale deeds. The said suit was dismissed for non-payment of court fee on 22.03.2012. To the knowledge of the petitioner, no further steps have been taken to restore the said suit, as such, no proceedings are pending in respect of the said properties. During the pendency of the above suit, the instant complaint was filed. The allegations made in the complaint, on the face of it, are civil in nature. Even otherwise, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the only allegation made in the complaint is that in collusion with other accused persons the aforesaid sale deed was registered. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet indicate the manner in which the alleged collusion or connivance was effected to bring about the sale deed. The allegations made against the petitioner even if accepted uncontroverted would not attract the ingredients of any of the offences insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. Thus, he seeks to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. On considering the contentions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the charge sheet, it could be seen that the petitioner herein is implicated in the alleged offences only on the ground that he is a purchaser of the property in question, from accused Nos.1 to 19. Except making a general allegation that the petitioner herein has colluded with accused Nos.1 to 19, no details of the alleged collusion or connivance are forthcoming in the complaint or in the charge sheet. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein was any way instrumental in fabricating or bringing about the revenue documents. No such role has been attributed to the petitioner herein. Further, very civil suit launched by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the very same sale deed having been dismissed, there is virtually no challenge to the execution of the sale deed. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution of the present petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and therefore cannot be sustained. As a result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.4942 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed only insofar as petitioner is concerned.
However, it is made clear that during trial if any incriminating material surfaces against the petitioner, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as well as other accused persons in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-