IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.374 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI. SANJAY RAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SRI. RAMA RAJU DIRECTOR: NEW BRIDGE PROJECTS (P) LTD 158, AECS LAYOUT SANJAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 094 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. K. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. S. PUTTASWAMY S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RA.SU.DEVELOPERS NO.2791/12K BASAVESHWARA MAIN ROAD K.R.MOHALLA MYSORE-570 004 2. DR. RAMESH JEVOOR C/O S.PUTTASWAMY RA.SU.DEVELOPERS NO.2791/12K BASAVESHWARA MAIN ROAD K.R.MOHALLA MYSORE-570 004 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION MYSORE CITY-570 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. G. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K. VARAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R3 & R4;
R.2 – SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN FIR NO.2/2013 BEFORE THE KRISHNARAJA P.S., MYSORE CITY DATED 2.1.2013.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri K. Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri G. Raghavendra, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP for the State.
2. One Smt. M.V.Lalitha and eight others, the owners of a property, entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. New Bridge Projects (P) Ltd. (‘Company’ for short) for development and construction of houses. They also gave a General Power Attorney to the said Company to manage the property.
The Company developed the land and formed a layout exercising the powers given under the General Power of Attorney. The Company executed an Agreement to Sell on 31.04.2012, in favour of one Dr.Ramesh Jevoor, agreeing to sell Site No.81 at Rs.14,40,000/ and received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance sale consideration. The balance amount of Rs.9,40,000/- was agreed to be paid within 45 days from the date of Agreement.
3. Shri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since Dr. Ramesh Jevoor, did not pay the balance amount in time, the Company entered into another Agreement with one Channakeshava on 19.06.2012. Dr. Jevoor through his power agent S.Puttaswamy – respondent No.1 herein, got registered FIR No.2/2013 on 02.01.2013 in Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru City alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 read with 34 of IPC. It is submitted that parties have entered into a valid agreement to transact an immovable property and the aggrieved party is entitled to seek redressal of grievance in a Civil Court. Therefore, the instant complaint amounts to abuse of process of law.
4. Shri G. Raghavendra, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP for the State argued in support of the complaint.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned advocate for the parties, learned HCGP for the State and perused the records.
6. The complaint alleges that the petitioner had induced respondent No.2 to purchase a site and received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner has entered into another Agreement to Sell the site in question in favour of one Channakeshava and thereby committed the alleged offences.
7. It is not in dispute that Dr. Ramesh Jevoor has entered into an agreement on 30.04.2012 to purchase a site and paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance sale consideration. He has agreed to pay the balance amount within 45 days from the date of Agreement. It is recorded in the Agreement that “time is the essence of the contract”, which reads as follows:
b) The balance sale consideration of Rs.9,40,00,000=00 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) shall be payable with in 45 days from date of this Agreement and Developer on receipt of the said balance amount shall execute and Absolute Sale Deed in respect of Schedule ‘B’ Property and register the same in the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar in favour of the Purchaser(s) or his/her/their nominee (S) and as such the TIME IS THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT.
01. The parties herein reserve their right for Specific performance of contract and also for damages in the event of violation of terms and condition of the agreement of sale, if any, and then the Vendors and Developer herein are entitled to forfeit a sum equivalent to 50% out of the Advance paid by the Purchaser (S) in case the Purchaser (s) failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the time under this agreement. In the same manner the Vendors and Developer herein are liable to pay the liquidated damage to the extent of 50% to the Purchaser (s) herein along with the advance money paid by theme in case the Vendors & Developer default and do not execute and register the sale deed within the period stipulated under this agreement even though the Purchaser(s) is/are ready to pay the balance sale consolidation without any delay in the stipulate time.” (emphasis supplied) 8. A combined reading of complaint and agreement shows that parties were ad-idem to transact the property in question and the complaint does not disclose any offences alleged against the petitioner. The matter is purely civil in nature and therefore, the criminal complaint is unsustainable in law.
9. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Proceedings in FIR No.2/2013 registered in Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru, are quashed.
10. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV