THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.17653/2008 ON THE FILE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND SUBSEQUENTLY QUASH THE F.I.R., COMPLAINT AND WHICH IS PRODUCED AT DOCUMENTS NO.1,2 & 3 AND ETC

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:12016 CRL.P No. 9012 of 2018

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶24

a. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.17653/2008 on the file learned III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and subsequently quash the FIR complaint which is produced at Document No. 1, 2 & 3.

¶25

b. Grant such other and further reliefs as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

Respondent No.2 had filed a private complaint in PCR No.545/2005 before the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. An order of reference under Section 156 (3) for investigation having been made, Crime No.45/2005 was registered on 7.3.2005 by the Kengeri Police Station for offence under Section 120-B, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the IPC. Upon investigation a charge sheet has been laid on 7.3.2005, it is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:12016 CRL.P No. 9012 of 2018

¶29

The material allegation made in the aforesaid private complaint is that accused No.1, one Sri.A.Ramu @ Somana, had approached the complainant for handover of the original documents pertaining to site Nos.18 and 39 formed in survey No.4/4 and 3/2 situate at Ammanikere, Sarakki village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore, South Kaluk contending that the said documents are required by accused No.1 for production in certain pending proceedings. The said documents having been handed over, despite a lapse

¶30

of time when the original documents were not handed back, the complainant made necessary enquiries with accused No.1 who sought for some more time to hand over the documents.

¶31

Suspecting the actions of accused No.1, the complainant approached the City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli when he came to know of a sale deed having been registered on 24.8.2002 in favor of one other person who is also shown to be Sri.K.R.Nagraja, i.e., the complainant himself and

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:12016 CRL.P No. 9012 of 2018

¶34

the sale has been executed in favor of that third party who has thereafter executed another sale deed on 3.4.2003 in favor of accused No.5 and it is in that background that action was requested to be taken against accused No.1 to 5 in the said proceedings.

¶35

Respondent No.2 having expired, notice to respondent No.2 has been dispensed with.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no particular allegation made against the petitioner, who is accused No.5 and who is a purchaser of the property on 3.4.2003. There is no allegation made against the petitioner as regards the request made by accused No.1 to the complainant for hand over of the original documents and the execution of the sale deed on 24.8.2002.

¶37

The only allegation made against accused No.5 is that she purchased the said property on 3.4.2003 from accused No.4. The accused No.5 being a bonafide purchaser for value, not having any

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12016 CRL.P No. 9012 of 2018

¶39

knowledge about any of the alleged criminal offenses, no criminal proceedings could be initiated against accused No.5 and the proceedings insofar as accuse No.5 is required to be quashed.

¶40

Having gone through the complaint and also the charge sheet, it is seen that neither in the complaint nor in the charge sheet which has been filed after investigation, there is any allegation made against accused No.5 as regards her involvement in any of the criminal offenses which have been alleged against accused No.1 to 4 who had allegedly fraudulently got a sale deed executed on 24.8.2002, making use of the original documents obtained by accused No.1 from complainant No.2.

¶41

A perusal of the sale deed also indicates that valuable sale consideration has been paid by accused No.5 to accused No.4. In that view of the matter, when no allegations are made against accused No.5 of any criminal intent or action which would come

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:12016 CRL.P No. 9012 of 2018

¶44

within the purview of Section 120-B, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the IPC, I am of the considered opinion that the said proceedings cannot continue. As such, I pass the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The Criminal petition is allowed .

¶47

ii. The proceeding in CC No.17653/2008 pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of PCR No.5451/2005 in so far as the petitioner-accused No.5 therein is concerned is quashed.

¶48

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards accused No.1 to 4.

¶49

iv. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IA does not survive for consideration.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Smt. Sumedha Rohit Purohit v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Sumedha Rohit Purohit v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Official Liquidator of Vs Mr S S Dahiya

Sri. Sudhir Prabhakar Ghate Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Magnum Intergrafiks Private Limited

Official Liquidator of M/S Magnum Intergrafiks Vs Sri Sudhir Prabhakar Ghate

Narasimha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Balakrishna Jois Vs the State by the Police Sub Inspector

Sri Ashok Patil Vs State of Karnataka