IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6035/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMA S/O NARASIMHA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/OF DOOR NO.1086, I CROSS T K LAYOUT, MYSORE-570001 2. A S SHANKARA PRASAD S/O LATE SURANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SMT. VANI RAO W/O SHANAKARA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. M R SATYANARAYANA RAO S/O M H RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SMT. POORNIMA S/O. M R SATYANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. M PUTTASWAMY S/O S P MADAIAH AGED 45 YEARS S/O K P MADAIAH KUBER NO.984/1, BOGADI II STAGE NIRMITHI KENDRA ROAD, BOGADI, MYSORE-570001 (BY SRI. K. B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR MS. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS AND M.D.MUTHAPPA S/O M A DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT SUNTIKOPPA VILLAGE RIVERSIDE ESTATE, KODAGU DISTRICT BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C M MADAPPA DOOR NO.733, 10TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR I STAGE MYSORE-570001 (BY SRI. K. S. BHEEMAIAH, ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.667/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C.(II COURT), MYSORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 466,468,471 AND 420 OF IPC INCLUDING ORDER DATED 19.07.2013 DIRECTING TO ISSUE PROCESS AGAINST THEM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.667/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
3. Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking action against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The case of respondent / complainant is that the property comprised in Sy.No.227 of Bhogadi Village, originally belonged to K.S.Suryanarayana Rao. The said K.S.Suryanarayana Rao executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Channegowda on 27.06.1994. On the strength of the said GPA, Channegowda executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant on 21.04.1994. The grievance of the complainant as spelt out in paragraph 6 of the complaint reads as under:
“Accused No.9 purchased 1.32 acres in four sale transactions from Accused No. 2, 4 to 6 as agricultural land knowing fully well the land was already sold by Channegowda on the strength of the GPA given by Late K.S.Suryanarayana Rao during his lifetime, the land was converted, layout was formed and sold to several persons. The accused No.9 also bought one site bearing Janjar No.2055/2 and property No.1912/2 measuring 50’x50’. The said property was sold in turn by accused No.9 to one Smt. Yashodha R. Bhat.”
4. From the above allegation, it is clear that the grievance of the complainant is that in respect of the site which was purchased by him, petitioners have executed a sale deed in favour of accused No.9.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the sale deed on which the respondent has based his claim is executed by one Srikanth and not Channegowda. The alleged GPA stated to have been executed by Late K.S.Suryanarayana Rao in favour of Channegowda is dated 27.06.1994, whereas the sale deed is registered in the name of complainant on 21.04.1994. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the complainant to contend that the petitioners have alienated the properties which has been purchased by him. Further, he submits that respondent herein filed a civil suit for injunction in O.S.No.1123/2004 against the petitioners and the said suit has been dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007. Regular appeal filed against the said judgment also has been dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that after the purchase of the properties, respondent got the RTC mutated in his name and he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties. To defeat the rights of the respondent, petitioners herein claiming to be the legal representatives of K.S.Suryanarayana Rao got their names entered in the revenue records. The same was challenged by the complainant before Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner has held that the mutation is fraudulent and has remanded the matter for further enquiry by the Tahsildar. Thus, he submits that there is clear case to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged fraud and forgery.
7. Contentions raised by the complainant on the face of it indicate that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The complainant claims to have purchased the disputed properties from Channegowda. The copy of the GPA produced by respondent at Annexure-R3 indicates that the said GPA is executed on 03.01.1994 in favour of Channegowda. Whereas the sale deed in favour of the complainant is executed by one Srikanth. There is no reference whatsoever to the GPA executed by the erstwhile owner - K.S.Suryanarayana Rao in favour of the vendor of the complainant, namely Srikanth. Therefore, the very title acquired by the complainant is questionable. Nonetheless the contentions raised by the parties clearly indicate that the said dispute cannot be adjudicated or decided by the criminal courts. Civil Court and the Revenue Court are already seized of the matter. The facts averred in the complaint do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. In the fact situation, I am of the opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant is manifestly illegal and cannot be allowed to be continued. Moreover the case set up by the complainant in his private complaint is not supported by the documents which are produced before this Court. In the light of these rival contentions and the factual situation discussed above, prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences cannot be sustained.
As a result, the petition is allowed. FIR registered against the petitioners and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. All the contentions urged by the parties are left open to be considered by the competent forum at the appropriate stage.
Sd/- JUDGE VP