Sri N Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

MRS.PRAGNA PONNAMMA K.A., @ POORNA PONNAMMA K.A., W/O SACHIN SUHAS V., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE RESIDING AT NO.164 1^ST MAIN ROAD RAMAKRISHNA BLOCK TYAGARAJANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 028.

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶13

(BY SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)

... PETITIONER

2

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGARA P.S., BENGALURU - 560 011 REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶18

2 . SMT. Y. SANDHYA W/O MADHUKAR YADAV.B.R., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE RESIDENT OF NO.353 10^TH ‘B’ MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI VINEET SHAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.12.2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS FIR DATED 31.12.2021 JAYANAGAR P.S., IN CR.NO.302/2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE 4^TH A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 468, 471, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3087 OF 2022

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI N.VENKATESH S/O NARAYANAPPA M., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HIGH COURT EMPLOYEE

¶25

3

¶26

... PETITIONER

¶27

RESIDING AT NO.114 GOVINDAPPA ROAD GANDHI BAZAAR BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶28

(BY SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGARA P.S., BENGALURU -560 011 REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶31

2 . SMT.Y.SANDHYA W/O B.R.MADHUKAR YADAV AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O NO.353, 10^TH ‘B’ MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶32

... RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI VINEET SHAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.12.2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS FIR IN JAYANAGAR P.S., DATED 31.12.2021 IN CR.NO.302/2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE 4^TH A.C.M.M COURT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 468, 471, 420 AND 120B R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶35

4

¶36

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3110 OF 2022

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

MR.SACHIN SUHAS V., S/O N.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CIVIL ENGINEER RESIDING AT NO.164 1^ST MAIN ROAD RAMAKRISHNA BLOCK TYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 028.

¶39

... PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGARA P.S., BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶43

2 . SMT. Y. SANDHYA W/O MADHUKAR YADAV B.R., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE RESIDENT OF NO.352, 10^TH B MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶44

... RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI VINEET SHAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶46

5

¶47

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.12.2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AS FIR DATED 31.12.2021 IN CRIME NO. 302/2021 JAYAYANAGAR P.S. BEFORE THE HONBLE 4TH A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 468, 471, 420 AND 120B R/W 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A.

¶48

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3133 OF 2022

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

SMT. DAKSHAYINI W/O SRI N.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCCUPATION: BUSINESS/HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT NO.114 GOVINDAPPA ROAD GANDHI BAZAAR BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶51

... PETITIONER

¶52

(BY SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGAR P.S., BENGALURU - 560 011 REPRESENTED BY SPP

¶55

6

¶56

2 . SMT. Y. SANDHYA W/O MADHUKAR YADAV.B.R., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE RESIDENT OF NO.353, 10^TH B MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶57

... RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI VINEET SHAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶59

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.12.2021 IN CR.NO.302/2021 JAYANAGAR P.S., BEFORE THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.406, 468, 471, 420, 120-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A.

¶60

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶61

7

¶62

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶63

CAV ORDER

¶64

The petitioners, in all these cases, are members of the same family and the complainant is common. All these petitions call in question registration of a crime in Crime No.302 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶65

Heard Smt Irfana Nazeer, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Vineet Sham Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, in all these cases.

¶66

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶67

The petitioner in Crl.P.3087 of 2022 is said to be an employee of this Court. He and his family get acquainted to the family of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that on certain assurances of the accused and their family, several crores of money

¶68

8

¶69

transaction happens between the two, wherein the accused is said to have borrowed Rs.1.5 crores from the complainant and also got a sale deed executed in their favour in respect of the property of the complainant situate at Jayanagar, which according to the complaint is about Rs.4.5 crores. The further allegation is that the sale deed registered in favour of the accused is without any money coming into the coffers of the complainant, who is the owner of the property. This is the crux of the complaint which leads to registration of a crime in Crime No.302 of 2021 for the aforequoted offences. Registration of the crime has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶70

Learned counsel for petitioners would vehemently contend that the transaction between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/complainant is purely civil in nature. Criminal law is set into motion only to arm-twist the petitioners in getting a higher value for the property that the petitioners purchased. All contents of the complaint are completely false. If there is any registration of a document is done, it is always open to the complainant to

¶71

9

¶72

institute a civil suit and seek appropriate relief at the hands of the civil Court.

¶73

Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the 2^nd respondent submits that the complainant has been cheated. The cheating is on the score that the petitioner in one of the petitions is an employee of the High Court and he has lured the complainant on him being a Court official. The learned counsel would submit that initially Rs.1.5 crores was taken as loan and the employee of the High Court had projected that since he is an employee, the amount should not be transferred to his account and therefore, the amount was transferred to the account of the family members. Thereafter, the property of the complainant was purchased on a forged document. Today the complainants neither have the property nor the money of the property. He would submit that it is not a civil transaction, but cheating and forgery by the petitioners.

¶74

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶75

10

¶76

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The acquaintance between the family of the accused and the family of the complainant is a matter of record. The transaction between the two, at the first blush, would seem to be a money transaction and thereafter, it is for the purpose of purchase of a site which was valued at Rs.4.5 crores belonging to the complainant. The transaction goes wrong and the complaint emerges. Complaint is registered on the score that the complainant was lured into selling the property and today she neither has property nor the money, as the registration documents are allegedly forged. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complainant and it reads as follows:

¶77

gÀªÀjUÉ,

¶78

��ೕ� ಇ�� ೆಕ�� ಜಯನಗರ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ನಗರ.

¶79

EAzÀ,

¶80

��ೕಮ� ೈ ¸ÀA ಧ# $ೋಂ & . ಆ�.ಮಧುಕ� (ಾದ* , 65 ವಷಾಸ ನಂ -353, 10 /ೇ & 0ೖ�, 3 /ೇ �ಾ23 ಜಯನಗದ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 011. ªÉÆ- 9886515694 4ಾ� - ಮ5ಾ6 7��ಯ

¶81

11

¶82

8ಾನ#5ೇ .

¶83

9ಷಯ - ನ:;ಂದ ಹಣವನು> 1.5 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> @ಾಲ ಾB ಪDೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಾವಸು� FೕಡGೆ Hಾಗೂ ನಮ; ಮ/ೆಯನು> 4.5 $ೋ?Iೆ ಖKೕL 8ಾಡುವMGಾB ನಂ&N ನಕ�ೕ GಾಖOೆಗಳನು> ತ(ಾKN KQಸ�� 8ಾRN , (ಾವMGೇ ಹಣವನು> FೕಡGೆ ನಮIೆ ನಂ&$ೆ Gೊ�ೕಹವನು> 8ಾR , Sೕಸ 8ಾRರುವ Hಾಗೂ ನಮ; ಹಣವನು> $ೇಳಲು Hೋದ5ೆ ನಮIೆ $ೊOೆ �ೆದK$ೆಯನು> HಾTರುವ ಎ� . ೆಂಕVೇW , ಸX� ಸುHಾ� , ��ೕಮ� GಾYಾZ[ Hಾಗೂ ��ೕಮ� ಪ�\ಾ ಎಂಬುವವರ 9ರುದ^ ದೂರು .

¶84

*********

¶85

/ಾನು ಈ 0ೕಲaಂಡ 9bಾಸದ�2 ನನ> ಕುಟುಂಬದ 4ೊdೆ ಾಸ ಾBದುe /ಾನು ಗೃg[(ಾBರುdೆhೕ/ೆ. ನನ> ಪ�ಯವರು Fವೃತh �ಾ#ಂ3 ಅj$ಾK(ಾBರುdಾh5ೆ . ನನ> ಮಗ ��ೕ ಶlಾಂ3 ರವರು ಪ�dೆ#ೕಕ ಾB ಅವನ ಕುಟುಂಬದ 4ೊdೆ ಾಸ ಾBರುdಾh/ೆ .

¶86

/ಾನು ಸು8ಾರು ವಷ-ಗmಂದ ಪ�� ಮಂಗಳ ಾರ «.«.¥ÀÄgÀA £À°ègÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÄ§æªÀÄtå¸Áé«Ä Gೇ ಾಲಯ$ೆa Hೋಗು�hದುe ಅ�2 ಸು8ಾರು ಒಂದೂವ5ೆ ವಷ-ದ gಂGೆ ��ೕಮ� GಾYಾZ[ ರವರು ಪKXತ5ಾBರುdಾh5ೆ . ಅವರು ಅವರ ಗಂಡ/ಾದ ಎ� . ೆಂಕVೇW ಎಂಬುವರನು> ಪKಚಯ 8ಾR$ೊ?�ದುe ಅವರು dಾನು �ೆಂಗಳ�Kನ Hೈ$ೋ?-ನ�2 $ೆಲಸ 8ಾಡು�hರುವMGಾB ಪKಚಯ 8ಾR$ೊಂRರುdಾh5ೆ . ಅನಂತರದ�2 ಅವರು ನಮ; ಮ/ೆIೆ ಬಂದು Hೋಗು�hದeರು . ಆದeKಂದ ನಮ; Hಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮpೆ# @ೆ>ೕಹ �ೆbೆLರುತhGೆ. ಈIೆq ಸು8ಾರು 6 �ಂಗಳ gಂGೆ ನನ> ಮ/ೆIೆ ಬಂದ GಾYಾZ[ Hಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಪ� ಎ� ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ಅವರ 8ಾ�ೕಕತrದ ಎ� . ಆ� $ಾOೋFಯ ಮ/ೆಯ 0ೕOೆ @ಾಲ9ದುe ಸದK @ಾಲವನು> wÃj¸À®Ä 1.5 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> @ಾಲ ಾB Fೕಡ�ೇ$ೆಂದು ಸದK ಹಣ$ೆa ¸ÀÆå K?(ಾB ಅವರ HೆಸKನ�2ರುವ Gೇವನಹmsಯ ಜ:ೕನನು> @ೇt Rೕu ಆB 8ಾR$ೊಡುವMGಾB �mNದರು . ಆದ5ೆ ನಮ; ಬm ಹಣ9ಲ2 ಎಂದು �mNGಾಗ ಎ�. ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ನನ> HೆಸKನ�2ರುವ ಜಯನಗರ 4 /ೇ �ಾ23 33 /ೇ $ಾ�� ನ�2ರುವ ನಂ -476 ಮ/ೆಯ 0ೕOೆ Oೋ� ಅನು> ಪDೆದು$ೊಂಡು Fೕಡುವಂdೆ ಮನ9ಯನು> 8ಾRರುdಾh/ೆ . ಆಗ /ಾನು ಈ 9ಷಯವನು> ನನ> ಪ� Hಾಗೂ ಮಗ ಶlಾಂ3 ರವKIೆ �mN , ಅವರು ಒvwದ5ೆ @ಾಲವನು> FೕಡುವMGಾB �mNದ 0ೕ5ೆIೆ ೆಂಕVೇW Hಾಗೂ GಾYಾZ[ ರವರು ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಮಧೂಕ� (ಾದ Hಾಗೂ ಮಗ ಶlಾಂ3 ರವರ ಮನ9ಯನು> 8ಾR ಒvwNರುdಾh5ೆ* .

¶87

ಅದರಂdೆ /ಾನು ನನ> HೆಸKನ�2ರುವ ಜಯನಗರ 4/ೇ �ಾ23 33/ೇ $ಾ�� ನ�2ರುವ ನಂ-476 ಮ/ೆಯ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ¯ÉèÃ±ÀégÀA ನ�2ರುವ ಾಸ9 $ೋ ಅಪ5ೇ?ೕ @ೊ@ೈ?ಯ�2 1.5 $ೋ?* ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¸ÀzÀj 1.5 PÉÆÃn ºÀtªÀÅ 22-09-2021 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ PÉ£ÁgÁ ¨ÁåAPï dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÁæAZï UÉ dªÉÄAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ಸದK

¶88

12

¶89

9ಷಯವನು> �mದು$ೊಂಡ GಾYಾZ[ Hಾಗೂ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ನಮ; ಮ/ೆIೆ ಬಂದು GಾYಾZ[ ರವರು ನಂ -7/6, �ಾಪನಹms Iಾ�ಮ , ಚನ>5ಾಯಪಟ�ಣ Hೋಬm , Gೇವನಹms dಾಲೂ2ಕು ಇ�2ರುವ 19 ಗುಂVೆ ಜ:ೕನನು> ನನ> HೆಸKIೆ ಅB�0ಂ• 8ಾR$ೊ?�ದುe ಅದನು> ನಂ&ದ /ಾನು ನನ> €ಾdೆZಂದ GಾYಾZ[ ರವರ P ನ5ಾ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ L/ಾಂಕ -23-09-2021 ರಂದು •ೆ3 ಮೂಲಕ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRರುdೆhೕ/ೆ. GಾYಾZ[ ರವರು ಅವರ ಮಗ/ಾದ ಸX� ಸೂHಾ� ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-�ೆ 8ಾRರುdಾh5ೆ. ಅGೇ Lನ ನನIೆ ಕ5ೆ 8ಾRದ ೆಂಕVೇಶ /ಾನು GಾYಾZ[ ರವರ €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ZNದe ಹಣದ�2 1.45 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> ನನ> �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ZNದುe ಸದK ಹಣವನು> ನನ> ಪ�ಯವKIೆ ಕಳ‚gN ಅನಂತರದ�2 ೆಂಕVೇಶ ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ �mN zÀ 0ೕ5ೆIೆ /ಾನು ಸದK 1.45 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> ನನ> ಪ� ಮಧುಕ� ರವರ ಕನ5ಾ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾತ UÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ �ಾ#ಂ3 SÁvÉ Zಂದ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರ $ೆನ5ಾ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ •ೆ3 ಮೂಲಕ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRNರುdೆhೕ/ೆ. ಆನಂತರದ�2 ನನIೆ ಕ5ೆ8ಾRದ ೆಂಕVೇW /ಾನು ಸ$ಾ-K /ೌಕರ/ಾBದe ನನ> �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆಯ�2 HೆX„ನ ಹಣ9ರ�ಾರGೆಂದು �mN ಮdೆh ನನ> ಪ�ಯವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ 1.45 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRದುe ಸದK ಹಣವನು> ಅವರ @ೊ@ೆ(ಾದ ಪ�\ಾ ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾಡುವಂdೆ �mNದ 0ೕ5ೆIೆ ನನ> ಪ�ಯವರು ಅವರ @ೊ@ೆಯ $ೋಟ3 ಮgಂGಾ� �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRರುdಾh5ೆ .

¶90

ಆನಂತರ L/ಾಂಕ -27-09-2021 ರಂದು ನನIೆ ಕ5ೆಯನು> 8ಾRದ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ಅವರ @ೊ@ೆಯ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆಯ�2 HೆX„ನ ಹಣವನು> ಇಟು�$ೊಳsಲು ಇಷ�9ಲ2 ಅದeKಂದ ಸದK ಹಣವನು> ನನ> ಮಗ/ಾದ ಶlಾಂ3 ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ZNದುe ಸದK ಹಣವನು> ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರ ಮಗ ಸX� ಸುHಾ� ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾಡುವಂdೆ �mNದ 0ೕ5ೆIೆ /ಾನು ನನ> ಮಗನ ಮೂಲಕ ಸX� ಸುHಾ� ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRNರುdೆhೕ/ೆ. ಅGೇ Lನ ಸದK ಸX� ಸುHಾ� ರವರು 1.45 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> ನನ> �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRರುdಾh5ೆ.

¶91

ಒಂದು ಾರದ ನಂತರ ನಮ; ಮ/ೆIೆ ಬಂದ GಾYಾZ[ Hಾಗೂ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ಅವರ ಮಗನ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ 75 ಲ7 ಹಣವನು> Hಾಗೂ GಾYಾZ[ ರವರ �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆIೆ 70 ಲ7 ಹಣವನು> ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾಡುವಂdೆ �mNದ 0ೕ5ೆIೆ /ಾನು ನನ> �ಾ#ಂ3 €ಾdೆZಂದ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾRರುdೆhೕ/ೆ . ಸದK ಹಣವನು> ಪDೆದು$ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಅವರು ಹಣವನು> ಸrಂತ$ೆa ಬಳN$ೊಂRರುdಾh5ೆ .

¶92

ಈ ವ#ವHಾರ ನDೆದ ಸು8ಾರು ಒಂದು �ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನಮ; ಮ/ೆIೆ ಬಂದ ೆಂಕVೇW Hಾಗೂ GಾYಾZ[ ರವರು ನನ> HೆಸKನ�2ರುವ 4 /ೇ �ಾ23 33 /ೇ $ಾ�� ನ�2ರುವ ನಂ -476 ಮ/ೆಯನು> ಅವ5ೇ ಖKೕL 8ಾR$ೊಂಡು �mNರುdಾh5ೆ. ಈ ಬIೆq /ಾವMಗಳ‚ Hಾಗೂ ಅವರು 8ಾತು$ೆಯನು> 8ಾRದುe ಮ/ೆಯನು> 4.5 $ೋ?Iೆ 8ಾ5ಾಟ 8ಾಡುವMGಾB /ಾವMಗಳ‚ �mNದುe ಅವರೂ ಒvw$ೊಂRರುdಾh5ೆ . ಅದರಂdೆ L/ಾಂಕ -18-10-2021 ರಂದು ಸಂ4ೆ 05.00 ಗಂVೆIೆ ನಮ;ನು>

¶93

13

¶94

ಜಯನಗರ 4 /ೇ �ಾ23 ನ�2ರುವ ಸ… KQಸ�� ಕ•ೇKಯ ಬmIೆ ಕ5ೆN$ೊಂಡ ೆಂಕVೇW , ಅವರ ಪ�> GಾYಾZ[ ಮಗ ಸX� Hಾಗೂ ¸ÉÆ¸É ¥ÀæeÁÕ ರವರು HಾಜKದುe /ಾನು, ನನ> ಪ� Hಾಗೂ ಮಗ ಶlಾಂ3 ರವರು Hಾಜ5ಾBರುdೇ ೆ. ಸ… KQಸ�� ಕ•ೇKಯು 5:30 $ೆa ಮು$ಾhಯ ಾಗುತhGೆ �ೇಗ ಸgಯನು> 8ಾR ಎಂದು ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು NದeಪRN$ೊಂಡು ಬಂLದe @ೇt ಆ Væ 0ಂ• ಅನು> dೋKN zÀÄÝ ಆಗ /ಾವM 4.5 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> ನಮ; �ಾ#ಂ3 SÁvÉUÉ ವIಾ-ವ�ೆ 8ಾ qÀÄ ವಂdೆ �mNGಾಗ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ಅ Væ 0ಂ• ಆದ ನಂತರ FೕಡುವMGಾB �mNದರು ಅವರ 8ಾತನು> ನಂ&ದ /ಾವMಗಳ‚ ಸದK ಆ Væ 0ಂ• ನ�2 ನಮ; ಮ/ೆಯನು> 4.5 $ೋ?Iೆ ಖKೕL 8ಾಡು�hರುವMGಾB ನಮೂದು 8ಾRದುe /ೋR$ೊಂಡು /ಾನು ನನ> ಪ� ಮಧುಕ� , ನನ> ಮಗ ಶlಾಂ3 ನನ> ತಂB ��ೕಮ� †ಾಯ Hಾಗೂ ನನ> ಅಣ‡/ಾದ Gೇ ಾನಂˆ ರವರು ಸgಯನು> 8ಾRರುdೆhೕ ೆ Hಾಗೂ ೆಂಕVೇW Hಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮಗ ಸX� ಸುHಾ ¸ï ರವರು ಸgಯನು> 8ಾRರುdಾh5ೆ. ¸À ದK @ೇt Rೕu ಅನು> ಸ… KQಸ�� ಕ•ೇK ಜಯನಗರದ�2 KQಸ�� 8ಾRNರುdಾh5ೆ . ಆB�0ಂ• ಪ��ಯನು> ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರು ಅವರ S�ೈt ನಂಬ� Fಂದ ನನ> ಪ�ಯವರ ಾಟ�‰ Iೆ ಕಳ‚gNದರು. ಅB�0ಂ• 8ಾR$ೊಟ� ನಂತರ ಸು8ಾರು 10 Lನಗಳ‚ ಕbೆ ದರೂ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬLಂದ (ಾವMGೇ ಹಣವM �ಾರGೆ ಇದುeದeKಂದ /ಾನು Hಾಗೂ ನನ> ಕುಟುಂ § ದವರು ಅವKIೆ ಕ5ೆಯನು> ಹಣವನು> Fೕಡುವಂdೆ ಮನ9ಯನು> 8ಾRದeರೂ ಅವರು ನಮIೆ ಸ$ಾ5ಾತ;ಕ ಾB ಸwಂLಸದ $ಾರಣ ನಮIೆ ಅನು8ಾನ ಬಂದು ಸ… KQಸ�� ಕ•ೇK ಜಯನಗರ$ೆa HೋB /ಾವMಗಳ‚ 8ಾR$ೊಟ� @ೇt Rೕu ಅನು> ಪK�ೕಲ/ೆ 8ಾRGಾಗ ಸದK ಕ•ೇKಯ�2 ನಮ; ಮ/ೆಯನು> ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರ ಮಗ ಸX� ಸುHಾ� ರವರು 3 $ೋ?Iೆ ಖKೕL 8ಾಡು�hರುವMGಾB ನಮೂದು 8ಾRರುವMದು ಕಂಡುಬಂLರುತhGೆ . ಆದeKಂದ IಾಬKIೊಂಡು /ಾವMಗಳ‚ ೆಂಕVೇW , GಾYಾZ[ ರವKIೆ ಕ5ೆಯನು> 8ಾR 9•ಾರ�ೆ 8ಾRGಾಗ KQಸ�� 8ಾRಸುವ ಸಮಯದ�2 GಾಖOೆಗಳ�2 VೈvಂŠ / 4ೆ5ಾ3� ತvwFಂದ ಆBರುತhGೆ 8ಾತುಕdೆ 8ಾRದಂdೆ 4.5 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> FೕಡುವMGಾB �mNದನು . ಆದ5ೆ ನಮIೆ (ಾವMGೇ ಹಣವನು> FೕಡುವMLಲ2 . ಆಗ /ಾವMಗಳ‚ ೆಂಕVೇW ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ$ೆa ಈIಾಗOೇ FೕRದe 1.5 $ೋ? @ಾಲದ ಹಣವ/ಾ>ದರೂ Fೕಡುವಂdೆ ಒdಾhಯ 8ಾRದ 0ೕ5ೆIೆ 1 $ೋ?Iೆ 2 ಚ3 ಗಳನು> FೕRದುe ಅವMಗಳ�2 1 ಚ3 8ಾತ� �ಾ� ಆB 50 ಲ7 ಹಣವM ನಮIೆ ಬಂLರುತhGೆ. ಉmದ ಹಣವನು> Fೕಡುವಂdೆ ಅವರ ಮ/ೆಯ ಬmIೆ HೋGಾಗ /ಾ/ಾ#ರು ಅಂತ FಮIೆ Iೊ�hಲ2 . ಇ/ೊ>0; ಹಣವನು> $ೇm$ೊಂಡು ಬಂದ5ೆ �ಾ�ಣ ಸgತ &ಡುವMLಲ2 ಎಂದು �ಾ�ಣ �ೆದK$ೆಯನು> HಾTರುdಾh/ೆ .

¶95

gೕIೆ ನ:;ಂದ 1.5 $ೋ? ಹಣವನು> @ಾಲ ಾB ಪDೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಸದK ಹಣವನು> ಾಪಸು� FೕಡGೆ , Hಾಗೂ ನ £Àß ಜಯನಗರ 4 /ೇ �ಾ23 33/ೇ PÁæ � ನ�2ರುವ ನಂ -476 ಮ/ೆಯನು> 4.5 $ೋ n Iೆ ಖKೕL 8ಾಡುdೆhೕ ೆಂದು ನಮ; ಬm 8ಾತುಕdೆಯನು> 8ಾR ಅಪ5ಾjಕ ಒಳಸಂಚನು> £ÀqÉ¹ ನಮ;ಗಳ ನಮ PÀë ಮ 4.5 $ೋ?Iೆ ¸ÉÃ t ಅB�0ಂ• ಅನು> ಸ… KQಸ� ಕ•ೇKಯ�2 j Qಸ�� 8ಾRN , ಸದK GಾಖOೆಯನು> ಸ… KQಸ�� ಕ•ೇKIೆ ಸ�2ಸGೆ �ೇ5ೆ GಾಖOೆಯನು> ಸ… KQಸ�� ರವರ ಕ•ೇKIೆ

¶96

14

¶97

ಸ�2N ನಮIೆ (ಾವMGೇ ಹಣವನು> FೕಡGೆ Sೕಸ 8ಾRರುವ ಎ�. ೆಂಕVೇW Hಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ 0ೕOೆ ಸೂಕh $ಾನೂನು ಕ�ಮ ಜರುBಸ�ೇ$ೆಂದು ಈ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ತಮ;�2 $ೋರುdೆhೕ/ೆ .

¶98

ಇಂ� ತಮ; 9lಾrN Sandhya Y.”

¶99

The complaint is in vivid detail, as to how the employee of the Court got in touch with the complainant and indulged in a transaction. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. If the complaint is noticed, it depicts maze of facts. The allegations are, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and conspiracy. The investigation may lead to affirmation of the crime so registered or may vary. In the light of the vivid complaint, it cannot be said that the issue is purely civil in nature.

¶100

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a civil transaction is given a colour of crime would sound acceptance in its first blush, but on a deeper delving into the complaint, it is prima facie indicative of the fact that the complainant has been hoodwinked. This would require an investigation in the least. Since the investigation is stalled, I deem it appropriate to permit investigation into the case at hand, as it is no law that merely because an issue brought before the Court

¶101

15

¶102

answering a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. projects the dispute being civil in nature, it is not that such crime, at the stage of investigation, should be obliterated.

¶103

There are scores and scores of cases where a civil ingredient is paraphrased to be the ingredient of crime and a crime is registered. An agreement between the parties is projected to become crime. Arm-twisting tactics are used by setting the criminal law into motion. Crimes are registered to wreak vengeance. Those are cases where crimes have been obliterated at the stage of investigation itself. Therefore, it is on a case to case basis that this Court would examine, interdict or quash the crimes. In a given case, the facts may have flair and flavour of both civil and criminal acts. In such circumstances, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. JAGADISH V. UDAYA KUMAR G.S.¹ , wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

¶104

“6. One of the striking features of the matter is that on the day when the sale deed was executed, not a single paisa was actually received by way of consideration. Three postdated cheques were handed over to the appellant and one

¶105

1 (2020)14 SCC 552

¶106

16

¶107

of those three cheques was deposited in the bank for encashment on the next date. It is a matter of record that subsequent cheques were not even sought to be encashed and the appellant showed his willingness to deposit even the sum of Rs 15 lakhs received by encashment of first cheque. Further, neither the conveyance deed was preceded by any agreement of sale nor any advertisement was issued by the appellant showing his inclination to dispose of the property in question.

¶108

7. It is true that civil proceedings have been subsequently initiated to get the registered sale deed set aside but that has nothing to do with the present criminal proceedings.

¶109

8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.

¶110

9. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [ Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar , (1985) 2 SCC 370 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 180] this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under : (SCC pp. 382-83, para 21)

¶111

“ 21 . … There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her

¶112

17

¶113

husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law.”

¶114

10. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] this Court observed : (SCC p. 263, paras 10-12)

¶115

“ 10 . It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. One of the illustrations set out under Section 415 of the Penal Code, 1860 [Illustration f ] is worthy of notice now:

¶116

‘( f ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.’

¶117

11 . The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities.

¶118

12 . The High Court [ Gagan Kishore Srivastava v. State , 1998 SCC OnLine Del 625 : (1998) 47 DRJ 438] seems to have adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach and sieved the complaint through a colander of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients under Section 415 IPC. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation. At any rate, it is too premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it is a commercial transaction simpliciter wherein no semblance of criminal offence is involved.”

¶119

18

¶120

11. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. [ Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. , (2002) 1 SCC 555 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 200] as under : (SCC p. 561, para 9)

¶121

“ 9 . Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. After referring to judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal [ Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal , (1999) 8 SCC 686 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 47] held : (SCC p. 690, paras 7-8)

¶122

‘ 7 . Time and again this Court has been pointing out that quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions [vide State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] ].

¶123

8 . In the last referred case this Court also pointed out that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. We quote the following observations : ( Rajesh Bajaj case [ Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , SCC p. 263, para 10)

¶124

“ 10 . It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.” ’ ”

¶125

12. After referring to various decisions it was finally concluded as under : ( Kamaladevi Agarwal case [ Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. , (2002) 1 SCC 555 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 200] , SCC p. 566, para 17)

¶126

“ 17 . In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the

¶127

19

¶128

argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”

¶129

13. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [ R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta , (2009) 1 SCC 516 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 567] this Court culled out propositions concerning interference under Section 482 of the Code as under : (SCC p. 523, para 15)

¶130

“ 15 . Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

¶131

( 1 ) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

¶132

( 2 ) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

¶133

( 3 ) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

¶134

( 4 ) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”

¶135

14. In the light of the principles as mentioned hereinabove, we have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decision rendered by the High Court and direct that criminal proceedings shall be taken to logical conclusion in accordance with law.”

¶136

(Emphasis supplied)

¶137

20

¶138

The Apex Court holds that in cases where both the civil and criminal acts are found, the Court should not quash the proceedings holding that it is purely civil in nature.

¶139

It would further become apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH² wherein the Apex Court holds that when the complaint projects maze of facts or even a case after filing the charge sheet projects maze of facts, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not interfere. It is held as follows:

¶140

“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned

¶141

2 (2021) 9 SCC 35

¶142

21

¶143

judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.

¶144

9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992

¶145

22

¶146

Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.

¶147

9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.

¶148

10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 2710-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish

¶149

23

¶150

during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.

¶151

11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.

¶152

12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting

¶153

24

¶154

the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.

¶155

13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.

¶156

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.”

¶157

(Emphasis supplied)

¶158

The complaint in the case at hand, as observed hereinabove, narrates vivid details of the transaction and prima facie projects wrong doing. Therefore, investigation in the least, is necessary in the case at hand.

¶159

25

¶160

Leaving open all the remedies available in law to the petitioners to avail of, finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand rejected.

¶161

Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved.

¶162

_SD/- JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶163

Bkp CT:MJ

Sri N Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H C Prathik Vs the State of Karnataka

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Harisha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Shashil G Namoshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. S. Yeddyurappa Vs the Criminal Investigating Department CID

Sri. B. S. Yeddyurappa Vs the Criminal Investigation Department (Cid)