Quashed

Sri. Manjunatha. P. K. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023CRL.P/138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenged proceedings in a complaint case under Section 420 IPC against petitioner arranged as accused No. 2. Court quashed proceedings against him due to absence of allegations that he induced complainant to enter sale agreement with intention to at

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceeding in CC No.4839/2022 against petitioner-accused No. 2 insofar as it relates to him is quashed.

Sri. Manjunatha. P. K. Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27314 CRL.P No. 138 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 138 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATHA. P.K. S/O T KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O NO.26, BANDIKODIGEHALLIPALYA VILLAGE, BANDIKODIGEHALLI PALYA POST, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE NORTH-562149.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER BAGALUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

MR. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O BANDIKODIGEHALLIPALYA VILLAGE, BANDIKODIGEHALLIPALYA POST, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH-562 149.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:27314 CRL.P No. 138 of 2023

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT BEARING PCR.NO.413/2021 CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT/ HON'BLE TRIAL JUDGE) IN MATTER BEARING C.C.NO.4839/2022 WHEREIN THE PRESENT PETITIONER HEREIN IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner - accused No.2 is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 had executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of the defacto complainant, and had received an advance sale consideration of Rs.20,50,000/-. Such being the case, the accused Nos.1 and 2 fully knowing that, the accused No.1 had agreed to convey the subject land, an agreement of sale was executed in favour of the accused No.2 with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offence is impugned in this petition.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no allegation that, the accused No.2 had induced the defacto complainant to enter into an agreement of sale with the

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:27314 CRL.P No. 138 of 2023

¶27

¶28

accused No.1 with an intention to cheat. Hence, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the accused No.2 fully knowing that, the subject land was sought to be conveyed in favour of the defacto complainant conniving with the accused No.1, entered into an agreement of sale with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant. Hence, the charge sheet material prima facie discloses the commission of offence alleged against the accused herein, and at this stage, the veracity of the allegation cannot be gone into, and the same can be considered after full fledged trial, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant from inception. In the instant case, there is no allegation that, at the time of execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the defacto complainant, the accused No.2 had induced the defacto complainant to enter into an agreement of sale with the accused No.1 with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant. The accused No.2 is neither a party or witness to the agreement of sale executed in favour of the defacto

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27314 CRL.P No. 138 of 2023

¶33

complainant. The essential elements to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is conspicuously absent, and in the absence of the same, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.4839/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

BKM

Sri. Manjunatha. P. K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunatha. P. K. 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

Musthafa Vs State of Karnataka

Anand v Vs State by Ccb (Eow) Bangalore

Yogananda T Vs State by Mandya West Police Mandya

Shri. Rajappa. Y Vs State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Vs State by Cubbon Park Police Station

Shreenivasa Vs the State of Karnataka