IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.766/2014 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Sanjay Balakrishna S/o. H.M.Balakrishna Reddy Aged about 46 years Residing at No.10830 Rogolla drive, Charlotte North California 28277 USA.
2. Sri. H.M. Balakrishna Reddy S/o. late H.R.Muthappa Aged about 77 years, 3. Smt. Bhagyalakshmi W/o. H.M.Balakrishha Reddy Aged about 70 years, 4. Smt. Sridevi Lingaraju D/o. H.M.Balakrishna Reddy Aged about 50 years, Petitioners 2 to 4 are Residing at No.43/1, ‘Narasappa Residency’, 1st Floor Between 6th and 7th Main Road 8th cross, Malleswaram Bangalore – 560 003. …Petitioners (By Sri. Anant Mandagi, Sr. Advocate a/w. Sri. Amit A. Mandagi, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By the Station Officer Malleswaram Police Station Bangalore – 560 003.
2. Sri. N.V.Durshan S/o. N.R. Vijay Gopal Aged : Major Residing at No.S-201 Nishant Manor Opp. State Bank of Mysore Between 8th and 9th Cross 8th Main Road Malleswaram Bangalore – 560 003. ...Respondents (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1. Sri. Vivek Holla, Advocate for R-2.) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 29.03.2013 filed in Crime No.84/13, Malleshwaram P.S., Bangalore, pending on the file of the VII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, for the offences P/U/S. 420 and 34 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR dated 29.03.2013 in Crime No. 84/2013 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP.
3. Petitioners 1 and 2 entered into an agreement dated 04.10.2012 to sell certain properties to the respondent No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.1,51,00,000/-. Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance. In terms of the said agreement, the original title deeds of the said properties were kept in safe custody in Syndicate Bank, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore. A suit appears to have been filed by petitioners 1 and 2 for return of the said title deeds on account of the failure of the second respondent to abide by the terms of the sale agreement. The said suit is pending consideration of the Civil Court in O.S.No.4170/2013. The suit was filed on 11.06.2013. Thereafter, the respondent herein sought for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale by filing a suit in O.S.No.6073/2013. In that background, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 02.03.2013 alleging that the agreement in question was entered into by the petitioners with an intention to cheat him and in furtherance thereof, the petitioners received a consideration of Rs.51,00,000/- and failed to refund the same to the respondent.
4. Perusal of the records indicate that on account of the failure of the second petitioner to perform the terms of the agreement, the second respondent had issued a notice calling upon the first and second petitioners to perform their part of the contract. A reply has been issued; but there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner No.2 had at any time represented to the second respondent that he was not willing to transfer or alienate the said property in terms of the above agreement. On the other hand, the pendency of the civil suits between the parties indicate that the parties have failed to adhere to the terms of the contract, and therefore the dispute between the parties is surely civil in nature. Even otherwise, a reading of the complaint does not indicate any malafide intention or deception on the part of the petitioner No.2 or any other petitioners. Except making a bald allegation that ‘with an intention to cheat me and my family, have put up the property to sale with a malafide intention of inducing me to part with advance amount of Rs.51,00,000/- in the guise of selling the property’ no other allegations are found in the complaint, attracting the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are not parties to the said agreement. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioners had any common intention with petitioner No.2 to commit the above offences. Therefore, on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is wholly illegal and an abuse of the process of Court. A dispute which is essentially civil in nature is tried to be converted into a criminal offence.
For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated by filing an FIR dated 29.03.2013 in Crime No. 84/2013 of Malleswaram Police Station, pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-