Allowed

Sri.Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022CRL.P/1657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings for cheating and conspiracy against three petitioners in a property dispute. The Court held that with a civil suit for specific performance pending, starting criminal proceedings against a witness, mediator, and subsequent purchaser would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the entire criminal case was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1326/2016 for offences under Sections 420, 417, 120B and 149 IPC have been quashed.

Sri.Prakash Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1657 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAKASH S/O TIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶9

SRI TIMMAREDDY S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

¶10

PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 R/AT HAROHALLI GRAMA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 125.

¶11

SMT.P.DHANALAKSHMI W/O M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.12/57, 1^ST MAIN ROAD 2^ND CROSS, MAHESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU SOUTH MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU – 560 048.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI G.M.SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION

¶16

¶17

R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

SRI SRIDHAR K., S/O K.M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT DOMMASANDRA GRAMA 1^ST MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.6 ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 560 087.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1326/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 417, 120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1326/2016 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal for offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 120B r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶25

¶26

Heard Sri.G.M.Srinivasareddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court

¶27

Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶28

The second respondent registers a complaint against the petitioners alleging that petitioner No.3 is the purchaser of the property from the hands of her vendor, notwithstanding the fact that the complainant is an agreement holder of the very same property. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4, 3 and 5 respectively. The first petitioner/accused No.4 is a witness to the sale deed, second petitioner/accused No.3 is said to have mediated the sale between the third petitioner and the owner of the property i.e., accused No.1-Smt.Akkamma. The third petitioner is the person who has purchased the property in terms of the sale deed dated 14.08.2015 from Smt.Akkamma. The complainant claims to be an agreement holder from the hands of Smt.Akkamma who is owner of the property.

¶29

¶30

Smt.Akkamma executed a sale deed on 14.08.2015 in

¶31

favour of the third petitioner to which the first petitioner is the witness. The complainant claims to be in possession of an agreement for sale dated 05.03.2015 from the hands of Smt.Akkamma, the vendor of petitioner No.3 and has received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant. On the score that Smt.Akkamma could not have sold the property in favour of the third petitioner in the teeth of the subsistence of the agreement to sell, the complainant institutes a suit in O.S.No.1355/2015 seeking specific performance of the agreement that he is holding and said to have been executed by Smt.Akkamma, the owner of the property. The defendants in the suit are accused No.1 and 5, the subsequent purchaser-petitioner No.3. The said suit is pending adjudication before the competent civil Court.

¶32

At around the same time, the subject criminal case is registered by the complainant alleging that the third petitioner could not have purchased the property, which is the subject matter of agreement between the said Smt.Akkamma and the

¶33

¶34

complainant and the first and second petitioners being witness and the person who has mediated the sale, were also guilty of the offences so alleged. The police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 417 and 120B of the IPC.

¶35

The crux of the allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioners, is one of cheating and conspiracy. The aforenarrated facts with regard to the owner entering into an agreement with the complainant and later selling the property in favour of the third petitioner is not in dispute. All the parties being before the Civil Court in O.S.No.1355/2015 is a matter of record. The third petitioner is the second defendant and the vendor of the third petitioner is the first defendant in the suit instituted by the complainant seeking specific performance of the agreement that he is holding in his favour.

¶36

In the light of the fact that the civil suit is pending consideration, the criminal law could not be set into motion for

¶37

¶38

the offence of cheating, that too against the petitioners. The first petitioner being witness to the sale deed dated 14.08.2015 cannot be hauled into these proceedings, as he is only a witness and not even the consenting witness. The second petitioner is said to have mediated according to the complainant and no allegation is found against the second petitioner both in the charge sheet and in the complaint with regard to luring or inducing the complainant to enter into an agreement or inducing accused No.1 to sell the property to the third petitioner. He has only mediated the alleged sale between the parties. The third petitioner is the purchaser from Smt.Akkamma. It is for the accused No.1 Smt.Akkamma to answer the same, if at all it has to be answered.

¶39

Petitioners being the witness, mediator and the

¶40

subsequent purchaser from the hands of Smt.Akkamma, further proceedings if permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶41

¶42

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1326/2016 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal for offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 120B r/w Section 149 of the IPC stand quashed.

¶46

I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed, as a consequence.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

bkp CT:MJ

Sri.Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shahul Rafeeq M E Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rithesh Pais Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

J M Richard @ Joy Macdonald Richard Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Bhavesh Bafna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivamarigowda Vs the State by