IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.648 OF 2014 BETWEEN :
SRI VENKATESH REDDY S/O SRI NAGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A PATTAREDDY PALYA KAGGALIPURA POST KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560082 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O SRI CHIKKA VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS HOSUR GOLLAHALLI VILALGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 560 437 AND ALSO R/A KURUBARAHALLI GANGASANDRA POST GOWRIBIDANOOR TALUK 570 147 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER BIDADI POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 560 437 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI L. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR NO.287/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA UNDER SECTION 418 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETR. AND ALSO TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BIDADI P.S., NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE SAID COMPLAINT.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent.
2. Respondent No.1/complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.11.2008 to sell 1 acre 15 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.26/P1 for a total consideration of Rs.8,51,875/-. Respondent No.1 and the vendor having failed to comply with the terms of the said agreement, the petitioner/purchaser filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale in O.S.No.376/2012 and by judgment and decree dated 23.08.2013, respondent No.1 and other vendors were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed an execution for enforcement of the said decree and the same is pending in Execution No.114/2013.
3. That being the case, respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein. The material allegations made in the complaint are that under the aforesaid agreement of sale, only Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to respondent No.1 and the balance sum of Rs.3,90,000/- was not paid either to respondent No.1 or to her family members.
4. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein has filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale. The judgment passed by the Civil Court is produced before this Court. A reading of the said judgment indicates that even before the Civil Court, the contention was taken to the effect that full payment was not made to respondent No.1. However, rejecting the said contention, the Civil Court has noted that on the overleaf of Ex.P1 the second part of the payment made to the 5th defendant viz., Sri Rajkumar has been acknowledged. Even otherwise, the parties having filed a suit for specific performance, all the contentions including the contention with regard to the non payment of consideration was required to be urged before the Civil Court failing which the said contentions are deemed to have been waived by the parties to the litigation.
5. Respondent No.1 having agitated the issue before the Civil Court cannot seek to initiate criminal action against the petitioner for non payment of the consideration due under the agreement of sale. The parties to the said agreement having agitated their respective claims before the Civil Court are estopped from contending that the consideration under the said agreement of sale is still due and payable to the vendors therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appeal has been filed either by respondent No.1 or any other vendor challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.376/2012. Under the said circumstances respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to convert the civil dispute into a criminal offence and seek prosecution of the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint even if accepted in its entirety, do not constitute an offence under Section 418 and 420 of IPC.
6. As a result, the impugned proceedings being an abuse of process of Court, cannot be allowed to be continued. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.287/2013 are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE AKC