Allowed

T v. Maddireddy v the State by Bagepalli P S

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2024CRL.P/2779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against ten petitioners accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The disputes arose from an alleged sale agreement involving land, with the petitioner also facing a pending civil suit for specific performance filed by the complainant on the same cause of action. The Court held the matter to be a civil dispute in a criminal camouflage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Proceedings in C.C. No. 977/2021 standing quashed qua the petitioner.

T v Maddireddy Vs the State by Bagepalli P S — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2779 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

T.V. MADDIREDDY, S/O K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶8

T.V. BAYRAREDDY @ SHANKARAPPA, S/O K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶9

RAVICHANDRAN, S/O V. BAYRAREDDY @ SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

T.V. SHANKAR REDDY, S/O K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. BYAIAMMA, W/O K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE K.V. RAMALINGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶15

SMT. RADHAMMA, W/O T.V. BAYRA REDDY @ SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. SUJATHAMMA, W/O SHANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O CHOWDA REDDY, D/O K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. MANJULA, W/O T.V. MADDIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF: THATTAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. VIVEK K.N, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE BY BAGEPALLI P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶24

L. JAYARAM, S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶26

R/A SY. NO. 6/1, THUMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, NH-7, OPP. TO SJP COLLEGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. TONY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MELANIE SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.977/2021 REGISTERED BY THE BAGEPALLI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 417, 420, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, BAGEPALLI AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.977/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

¶33

Heard Sri. Vivek K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Thejesh P., learned HCGP appearing for

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶36

respondent No.1 and Sri. Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶37

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 10. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioners who own 5 acres of land in Sy.No.320 of Paragodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk enter into an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the property to the complainant at a particular consideration. The agreement is dated 29.01.2015. Respondent No.2 is said to have demanded several times to the petitioners to come forward and register the Sale Deed and for non-registering the Sale Deed, the complainant has sought to initiate two proceedings; one instituting a suit in O.S.No.368/2020 against these petitioners seeking a decree of specific performance for execution of the Sale Deed on the alleged agreement that have entered into between the parties. Simultaneously seeks to register a private complaint before the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶38

Learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which then becomes a crime in Crime No.78/2021

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶41

for several offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶42

This Court in terms of its order dated 02.06.2022 stayed further proceedings in C.C.No.977/2021 on the score that a seemingly civil dispute is sought to be rendered a colour of crime.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would take the issue forward by contending that the petitioners are owners of the property and have never executed the agreement of sale in favour of the complainant and the complainant has instituted suit for specific performance for execution of the Sale Deed on the basis of the alleged agreement. He would submit that since the issue is purely civil in nature, which is sought to be rendered a colour of crime by the impugned proceedings, permitting further proceedings would become contrary to law.

¶44

Learned Senior counsel, Sri. Tomy Sebastian appearing for respondent No.2 - the complainant would

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶46

vehemently refute the submissions to contend that when the complainant went to put up construction in the property, he was assaulted and therefore, a crime comes to be registered for several offences of assault inter alia to cheating. He would submit that the charge sheet is filed by the police and therefore, further proceedings must be permitted to continue.

¶47

I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶48

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Respondent No.2 claims to have an agreement of sale in his hand having been executed by these petitioners, who claim to be the owners of 5 acres of land in the afore-quoted survey number. The contention of the petitioners are that they have never entered into any agreement of sale. Be that as it may. The claiming a decree of specific performance the complainant

¶49

has instituted a suit in O.S.No.368/2020 on the very same cause of action of the petitioners not coming forward to execute

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶52

the Sale Deed. After registering the suit for specific performance, comes the present complaint registered on 23.03.2021 for several offences. The offences initially laid against these petitioners are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 324, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

¶53

The police conduct investigation and the product of investigation is as found in Column No.17, which reads as follows:

¶54

" 17. �ೇ�ನಸಂ�ಪ��ಾ�ಾಂಶ PÀ® A 406, 417, 420, 504, 506 g É/« 34 L¦¹

¶55

ಈ�ೋ�ಾ�ೋಪ�ಾ ಪ�� ಅಂಕಣ -12 ಕಂಡಆ�ೋ�ಗ�ಾದಎ -1 !ಂದ ಎ - 10 ರ ವ�ೆ$ನ ಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ& ತಮ) *ಾಬತು� *ಾ-ೇಪ./ 0.ೕ1 2ಾ�ಾ ಸರಹ45ನ *ಾ-ೇಪ./ 6ಾಲೂ/ಕು ಪರ-ೋಡು -ಾ8ಮದ ಸ9ೆ: ನಂ 320 ರ./ ., ನ 5 ಎಕ�ೆ ;9ಾ4ತ ಜ=ೕನ ಅರಣ> ಇ@ಾAೆಯ �ಾCDೕನದ./ದು5 , ಸದ! ಜ=ೕEನ ಓ . ಎ1 .-39/2012 �ೇಸನುG ಮ�ೆHಾI , �ಾ� -01 ರವ!-ೆ ಕ8ಮ HಾJ�ೊಡುವK�ಾ$ ಒ�M�ೊಂಡು ನಂN� 4Oಾಂಕ 29/01/2015 ರಂದು �ಾ� -02, �ಾ� -03, �ಾ� -04 ರವರ ಸಮPಮ �ಾ� -01 ರವ!ಂದ ಮುಂಗಡ9ಾ$ ಪQೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಕ8ಯ ಕ�ಾರು ಪತ8�ೆR ಸSಗಳನುG HಾJರು6ಾ � ೆ ನಂತರ 4Oಾಂಕ 28/01/2019 ರಂದು �ಾ� -01 ರವ!-ೆ ಮುಂದುವ�ೆದ ಕ8ಯ ಪತ8ವನುG ಬ�ೆದು �ೊ��ದು5 ಒTಾ��ೆUಾ$ �ಾ� -01 ರವ!ಂದ ಒಟು� 51,00,000/- ರೂ ಗಳನುG ಆ�ೋ�ಗ�ೆಲ/ರೂ ಪQೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಕ8ಯದ ಕ�ಾರು ಪತ8�ೆR ಸS HಾJ , ಸ9ೇ: ನಂ 320 ರ./ನ 5 ಎಕ�ೆ ;9ಾ4ತ ಜ=ೕEನನುG �ಾ� -01 ರವರ Wೆಸ!-ೆ ಕ8ಯ HಾJ�ೊಡ�ೇ ನಂN�ೆ �ೊ8ೕಹ4ಂದ Xೕಸ HಾJರು6ಾ � ೆ Wಾಗೂ 4Oಾಂಕ 12/03/2021 ರಂದು ಎ -01, ಎ -3, ಎ -4 ರವರು ಸ9ೆ: ನಂ 320 ರ ಜ=ೕEನ./ �ಾ� -01 ರವ!-ೆ ಅ9ಾಚ> ಶಬ5ಗZಂದ *ೈದು \ಾ8ಣ *ೆದ!�ೆ Wಾ]ರುವK�ಾ$ತEAೆ^ಂದದೃಡಪ��ರುತ � ೆ ."

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶57

11. None of the offences of assault are even taken

¶58

forward pursuant to the investigation. What is alleged against these petitioners are the offences for criminal breach of trust, cheating and intimidation, as is obtained under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 504 of the IPC. Since the civil suit is pending on the same cause of action instituted by the very complainant on the very same cause of action, the criminal law could not have been set into motion. Permitting further proceedings in C.C.No.977/2021 in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, would run plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue. Quoting all of them would only bulk the subject judgment, as it is by now too well a settled principle of law that a seemingly civil dispute, which is rendered a colour of crime should not be permitted to be continued, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶59

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:23742 CRL.P No. 2779 of 2022

¶64

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.977/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli, stands quashed qua the petitioner.

¶65

(iii) The observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the criminal Court in the conduct of trial against any other accused.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT: BHK

T v. Maddireddy v the State by Bagepalli P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T v. Maddireddy v the State by Bagepalli P S

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. G.K. Narasimhamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Sabari Unnithan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jude Arokiaraj L Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohamed Fawaz Sheikh Vs State of Karnataka

Raghavendra D Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Aris Vs the State of Karnataka