IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8984 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI S.MUMMOORTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. SRI. P.SOUNDARAJAN R/AT NO.25, PERIYAR NAGAR POOKKOLLAI NORTH, THANJAVUR TAMIL NADU – 613004 2. SMT. MEENATCHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O. S.MUMMORTHY R/AT NO.25, PERIYAR NAGAR POOKKOLLAI NORTH, THANJAVUR TAMIL NADU-613004 …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI SUKUMARAN G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560079 REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. SRI. B.HANUMANTHA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI. BHEEMANAYAK R/AT NO.104, 4TH MAIN MAHA GANAPATHI NAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN WEST OF CHORD ROAD BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560079 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI KUMAR K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FIRST AND SECOND PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.17272/2018 DATED 26.06.2018 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 420, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V A.C.M.M. BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Second respondent filed PCR No.9100/2017 against three persons before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging that he was induced by accused to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Even after lapse of one year, accused did not return the said money. Hence, he filed a complaint before the Police which has been registered as NCR No.289/2017. No further action is taken by the police. Learned Magistrate referred the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Shri Sukumaran G, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the complainant was desirous of purchasing a piece of land and paid an advance consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the matter is entirely civil in nature as transaction between the parties is in respect of immovable property bearing No.422/12A3 situated at Tanjavur Taluk. The parties have entered into an agreement to sell the property. In the circumstances, filing of private complaint and charge sheet against the accused amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, he prays for quashing the charge sheet.
3. Shri Kumara K.G., learned advocate for respondent No.2 submits that petitioners have offered to sell the land and collected a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent No.2. Subsequently, they sent a draft agreement through courier duly signed and executed by petitioners No.1 and 2 at Tanjavur. The schedule mentioned in the agreement signed by the petitioners was not the one which the petitioners had offered and agreed to sell. The said property mentioned in the agreement was not worth Rs.10,00,000/-. Despite repeated requests, petitioners did not execute the sale deed in respect of property bearing No.422/12A3, which, petitioners had originally agreed to sell. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions, and perused the records.
5. The undisputed facts of the case are, parties have entered into a transaction for sale of immovable property situated at Tanjavur. The complainant is said to have paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners and another accused namely accused No.3-Sharavanayyappa in the private complaint.
6. Complainant’s case is that the schedule mentioned in the draft agreement is not the property which the petitioners had offered to sell. Thus, parties are at variance with the description of the property. Further, it is petitioners’ case that in paragraph Nos.2 and 5 of the private complaint, it is stated that complainant was induced to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused. In paragraph No.9, it is stated that complainant did not have intention to purchase the property in Tanjavur. But complainants also state the description of property mentioned in the agreement was different than what was offered for sale. Thus, reading of the complaint in its totality shows that matter is civil in nature which has been given the color of a criminal case.
Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.17272/2018 pending on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed, so far as petitioners are concerned.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ