Sri P K Achuthanand Vs the State by Yeshwanthpur Police Station

SRI. DHANJAYA H.S. S/O SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT: NO.200, NEW NO.5, 3^RD MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 056.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1) SRI. GANESH G.G., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶18

2 -

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE BY YESHWANTHAPURA P.S., IN CRIME NO.213/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 24^TH ACMM, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.506, 34, 504, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 354 AND 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN P.C.R. NO.5456 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JUDGE 24^TH ACMM, BENGALURU CITY, ALLEGING FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.506, 504, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 354 AND 471 R/W 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is preferred by accused No.1 in Crime No.213/2023 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 506, 504, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 354 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶24

Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶27

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

¶28

A private complaint accompanied with an affidavit in PCR No.5456/2023 was filed by respondent No.2 before the Court of XXIV Additional CMM at Bengaluru, which was referred to police for investigation, consequent to which the aforementioned crime was registered.

¶29

The complainant claims to have purchased a house property bearing No.39/29, 1^st Main Road, KS Layout, Yeswanthapura, Bengaluru for a sale consideration amount of Rs.77,00,000/-, through a registered sale deed from the accused persons. It is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the property and they have executed a sale agreement through accused No.1. The said accused approached the complainant and informed him that there is a loan pending on the said property and since the owners cannot repay the loan, Bank officials may seize the property and therefore,

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶31

agreement for sale was entered and accused No.1 agreed to clear the bank loan. It is further stated that accused No.1 also assured the complainant that he will execute the sale deed and fixed sale consideration of Rs.77,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- including the loan amount was paid to accused No.1 and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to accused No.2 and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- payable to the tenants towards the security deposit amount, was also paid.

¶32

The grievance of the complainant is that he has

¶33

paid the entire sale consideration amount to accused No.1 and handed over a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.52,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, in all a sum of Rs.66,00,000/and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused No.2 and got registered the sale deed but when approached the accused person to vacate the premises by paying Rs.6,00,000/- to the tenants they went on postponing the matter and later came to know that the tenants were residing in the premises on lease

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶35

and they demanded a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- to settle the matter. It is alleged that the accused persons have suppressed the real facts to the complainant and collected the entire sale consideration amount and executed the sale deed with an intention to cheat the complainant.

¶36

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint which is not explained and therefore, on the said ground alone the proceedings have to be quashed. He further contended that the complaint is filed in order to settle the civil dispute relating to possession and eviction etc., and the entire averments in the complaint constitute a civil transaction and does not fulfill the ingredients of the criminal offences alleged. He has contended that there are some bald allegations made in the complaint and Section 354 IPC has been invoked and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶37

Merely, the complaint is lodged belatedly, that

¶38

itself is not a ground to doubt the veracity of the complaint

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶40

allegations at this stage. The complainant has stated that on 02.07.2022 when he approached the Police Station, an NCR No.557/2022 was registered but no action was taken and therefore, on 12.08.2022 he lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police and even then no action was taken and therefore, he was constrained to file the complaint. The complaint is accompanied with an affidavit.

¶41

In so far as invocation of Section 354 of IPC is concerned, it is alleged in the complaint that when the complainant and his wife approached the accused persons, they colluded with each other and abused them with foul and filthy language and pulled the veil of complainant’s wife and tried to assault them.

¶42

Omnibus allegations are made that the accused have colluded with each other, abused and assaulted the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of complainant’s wife. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is nowhere mentioned in the

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶44

complaint as to when the said incident took place. On such vague and bald allegations, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC are made out. However, the complainant has alleged that the accused have created forged document stating that his tenants were residing on rent basis and also forged signature of the tenant and cheated the complainant for wrongful gain. The same is a matter for investigation. The duty of the Police to conduct investigation in so far as offences under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 r/w 34 of IPC., are concerned, cannot be interfered with. For the foregoing reasons, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Petition is partly allowed.

¶47

(ii) The registration of FIR and consequent investigation in so far as Section 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC is quashed.

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10945 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2023

¶49

(iii) The investigation in so far as other offences i.e., under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 r/w 34 of IPC shall continue.

¶50

(iv) The Police shall conduct investigation in the matter and file an appropriate report without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

¶51

(v) The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the

¶52

charge sheet if any filed against him.

¶53

I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶55

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 Ct:ar

Sri P K Achuthanand v. the State by Yeshwanthpur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P K Achuthanand v. the State by Yeshwanthpur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt C G Vanajakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan Kamath Vs Smt Neethi D Nayak

Manjunatha S C Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Shakuntala Vs the State of Karnataka