Allowed

Shri. Muzammil M.a., S/O M Abdul Zahid v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024CRL.P/102987/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of FIR alleging he took advance under a sale agreement but sold the property to a third party. The High Court held the dispute was civil in nature; mere breach of contract is not an offence, making prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings against petitioner in Crime No.35/2022 quashed.

Shri. Muzammil M.a., S/O M Abdul Zahid Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12867 CRL.P No. 102987 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102987 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. MUZAMMIL M.A., S/O. M. ABDUL ZAHID, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 1270, SMSK HOUSE, NEAR SHANTI MAHAL, ARAVING NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-587201.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.CHETAN B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HOSAPETE EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR -587201, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHAWAD BENCH, DHARWAD – 580001.

¶16

B. CHANDRASHEKHAR BHURAT, S/O. R. BABULAL BHURUT, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: PROPERIETOR OF NODDY KIDS, R/O: 31^ST WARD, JAIN COLONY, DAM ROAD, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 587201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶19

SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12867 CRL.P No. 102987 of 2022

¶22

CRIME NO.35/2022 OF HOSAPETE EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE FOR THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 405, 406, 415 AND 420 R/W SECTION 120B OF THE IPC 1860, ON FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS/SOLE ACCUSED IS CONCERNED AND IMPOSE EXEMPLARY COSTS ON THE 2^ND RESPONDENT FOR INITIATING FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN A PURELY CIVIL DISPUTE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the sole accused praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.35/2022 of Hosapete Extension Police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 r/w Section 120(B) of IPC.

¶27

The respondent No.2 has filed a complaint

¶28

against the petitioner and the same came to be registered in PCR No.150/2022 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete. The said complaint came to be referred to police for investigation. The police registered

¶29

the said complaint in Crime No.35/2022 of Hosapete Extension Police station for the aforesaid offences. The

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12867 CRL.P No. 102987 of 2022

¶31

petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the said Crime No.35/2022.

¶32

In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner has executed sale agreement in favour of the respondent agreeing to sell his property for sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and has received advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- by way of cheques and subsequently he did not execute the sale deed and alleged to have sold his property to some third person.

¶33

Heard, learned counsel for petitioner and

¶34

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not present.

¶35

The learned counsel for petitioner would

¶36

contend that on plain perusal of the averments of the complaint, there is allegation of breach of terms of the sale agreement. He contends that mere breach of contract is not an offence. The remedy for the respondent is to

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12867 CRL.P No. 102987 of 2022

¶38

initiate civil proceedings against the petitioner. The civil dispute is given colour of criminal offence. He further submits that the petitioner denies execution of sale agreement contending that the petitioner has borrowed the money from respondent by pledging his gold ornaments. He contends that the respondent in order to settle a civil dispute, has filed criminal proceedings against the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has committed breach of his promise made under the sale agreement and he has sold his property to third party and it attracts offence under Section 420 of IPC. She further contends that the matter is under investigation.

¶40

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

¶41

perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12867 CRL.P No. 102987 of 2022

¶43

As per averments of the complaint, the petitioner said to have executed sale agreement dated 20.02.2018 in favour of respondent agreeing to sell his property for sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and has received Rs.40,00,000/- as earnest money through cheques. The further averments of the complaint indicates that the petitioner did not execute sale deed as agreed under the sale agreement and cheated the respondent by sale of his property to third party. Mere breach of contract, does not attract any offence. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is of civil nature. If there is any breach of terms of sale agreement, the remedy for the respondent is to initiate civil proceedings against the petitioner. In the averments of the complaint, no name of the person who is alleged purchaser from the petitioner is stated. Considering the said aspect, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law.

¶44

9. In view of the same, the following:

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12867 CRL.P No. 102987 of 2022

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The petition is allowed.

¶48

ii. The proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.35/2022 of Hosapete

¶49

Extension Police station are quashed.

¶50

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

RKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Shri. Muzammil M.a., S/O M Abdul Zahid v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Muzammil M.a., S/O M Abdul Zahid v. the 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

Kumar.Rohan Laxman Chavan Vs Shri. Sanjay Parashuram Savant

The Divisional Manager Vs Basavannevva Basappa Lagodi

The Divisional Manager Vs Prakash Basappa Alagodi

Rudrappa Banappa Hadapad Vs the Stae of Karnataka

Ishwar Kallppa Tuppad Vs the State of Karnataka

Lalitha Deepti W/O. Suresh Thumpati Vs the State of Karnataka