IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7553 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SUDHEER JOSEPH SANDEEP S/O LATE JOSEPH DEVRAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT VILLA NO. 19, SLS SPENCER, OPP AGARA LAKE, JAYANTHI NAGAR ROAD, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE - 560 043. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: DILRAJ J ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SURESHA A C S/O LATE A.S. CHIKKANANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS R/AT NO. 337, 1ST D CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, 2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT: H.N. KAVITHA & SRI: RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.8948/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406,463,471,474 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC NOW REFERRED TO GIRINAGARA P.S. FOR ENQUIRY.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in PCR No.8948/2016 registered at the instance of second respondent for the alleged offences punishable under sections 34, 406, 463, 471, 474 and 506 of IPC.
2. The second respondent filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., seeking action against petitioner for the above offences. Learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. A reading of the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of any of the above offences. According to the complainant, he had entered into written agreement dated 21.10.2012 with the petitioner herein to construct a residential building on site Nos.67 and 68, situated at Sri Janaki Ram Layout, Mattahalli Village, Dasanpura Hobli, Bangalore North. The estimated cost was Rs.72,83,480/-. After completion of the work, he issued the final bill for Rs.84,74,255/-. Petitioner/accused is liable to pay balance amount of Rs.12,87,303/-. In spite of issuance of notice, petitioner did not pay the said amount and hence, complainant sought criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the above offences.
4. A reading of the averments made in the complaint, on the face of it, indicate that the grievance of the petitioner relates to recovery of balance amount of Rs.12,87,303/-. According to the complainant, the estimated cost was Rs.72,83,480/-, but he issued a final bill for Rs.84,74,255/-.
Nonetheless, the dispute between the parties relates to recovery of balance outstanding which is purely civil in nature. Complainant cannot convert the recovery proceedings into a criminal offence. The averments made in the complaint, even if accepted on their face value, do not make out ingredients of any of the offences much less the offences under sections 34, 406, 463, 471, 474 and 506 of IPC.
5. In that view of the matter, the complainant having failed to make out a prima facie case warranting investigation into the alleged offence, learned Magistrate has committed an error in directing investigation by the police under sections 34, 406, 463, 471, 474 and 506 of IPC. Police have registered the FIR on the private complaint without there being any prima facie allegation constituting any of the above offences. The complaint squarely fits into category (a) of cases mentioned in decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA & Others vs. CH. BHAJAN LAL & Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, which reads as under:-
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
Since criminal proceedings have been initiated to settle civil dispute, this is a clear case of abuse of process of law.
Hence, petition is allowed. Proceedings in PCR No.8948/2016 pending on the file of IV ACMM, Bangalore are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss