IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6061 /2014 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RUPEN PATEL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. SRI. PRAVEEN PATEL CHAIRMAN M/S. PATEL REALTY INDIA LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, PATEL ESTATE S.V. ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI-400 102.
2. SRI. PRAVIN MALKANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. HARIKISHAN DAS MALKANI MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. PATEL REALTY INDIA LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, PATEL ESTATE S.V. ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI-400 102.
3. SRI. SATHWINDER SINGH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. SWARAN SINGH SOKHEY SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS) M/S. PATEL REALTY INDIA LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, PATEL ESTATE S.V. ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI-400 102.
4. SRI. NEEL PATEL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O. SRI. ANIL T. PATEL DIRECTOR, (MARKETING AND SALES) M/S. PATEL REALTY INDIA LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, PATEL ESTATE S.V. ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI-400 102.
5. SRI. COOLIN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O. SRI KENNETH RODRICH ASSISTANT MANAGER (FACILITIES) M/S. PATEL REALTY INDIA LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, PATEL ESTATE S.V. ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI-400 102. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HEBBAGUDI POLICE STATION ATTIBELE CIRCLE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106.
2. ALFARAA GENERAL CONTRACTING PRIVATE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, NO.20 VENUGOPALASWAMY MAIN ROAD EJIPURA, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034.
REP. BY Y. SRINIVASAN. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP. FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.574/2014 REGISTERED BY THE HEBBAGUDI P.S., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
` THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.574/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint did not make out ingredients of any criminal offences by the petitioners. Except reproducing the provisions of law, complainant has not alleged any specific acts by the petitioners making out the offences alleged in the FIR. On the other hand, on the very date of the registration of the aforesaid complaint in Cr.No.574/2014 at the instance of the petitioners, a complaint was lodged against the 2nd respondent and others for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC and the same was registered in Cr.No.570/2014. The instant complaint is counter blast to the said complaint. Hence, the initiation of the criminal action against the petitioners is illegal, malafide and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Addl.SPP appearing for respondent No.1 while arguing in support of the impugned action contended that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose the offence committed by the petitioners and therefore, there is no reason to quash the FIR.
5. A bare reading of the complaint discloses that in respect of the construction work carried out by 2nd respondent, a sum of Rs.63.5 crores is alleged to be due to the complainant by the petitioners. The said claim, even if true, does not give rise to any criminal offence. The other allegation made in the complaint is that the complainant had installed a notice board at the property and the same was pulled out by the security personnel of the petitioners by issuing threat of underworld action against the complainant. Those allegations even if accepted as true, would show that none of the petitioners herein were the perpetrators of the said act. No complaint has been lodged against the security personnel of the petitioners. In the complaint except asserting that criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal intimidation to cause death, falsification of documents and other offences were committed against the complainant, the complainant has not disclosed any specific overt act by the petitioners. Reading of the complaint indicates that no criminal offence has been committed by the petitioners. The complaint appears to have been filed as a preemptive measure to ward off any action by the respondents and his men.
6. The above facts and circumstances of the case go to show that the complainant has abused the criminal process to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. Since, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, registration of FIR and consequent investigation thereon is only illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Criminal proceedings of FIR in Cr.No.574/2014 on the file of Addl. C.J.(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 506 read with 149 of IPC is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-