N.H.Poornima Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.107/2022 ARISING OUT OF P.C.R.NO.51360/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 420, 447, 448, 449, 503, 441, 442 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1890 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused has filed this

¶30

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her in Cr.No.107/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 441, 442, 447,

¶31

448, 449, 503, 504 r/w 34 IPC, arising out of PCR.No.51360/2022 on the file of XXIX ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶32

In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that based on the order dated 25.02.2022 in PCR.No.51360/2022, respondent No.1 police have registered case in Cr.No.107/2022 and taken up investigation. Petitioner has not committed the alleged

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

offences. Without proper application of mind, the Magistrate

¶36

has referred the complaint for investigation. The dispute in question is civil in nature and instead of approaching the Civil Court, respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint. The underlying criminal proceedings is rather instituted for an breach of contract for sale of the year 2007. The complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has not disclosed all the relevant facts. In fact, petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent No.2 in Cr.No.376/2016. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.50628/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 448, 504 and 506 of IPC. However, it was settled before the Lokadalat on 14.08.2021.

¶37

2.1 During the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the sale agreement was not referred to and at that time also respondent No.2 has not availed any legal remedy to enforce the alleged contractual rights. Now after more than 10 years, he has chosen to file false complaint. In fact, the concerned police have issued NCR. As an arm

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

twisting strategy, the respondent No.2 has filed the complaint and without proper application of mind the trial Court has referred it for investigation. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount of abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

¶41

On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State submit that, when respondent No.2 was in search of landed property in and around Bengaluru city, the husband of petitioner offered to sell property No.31 (Old No.30) situated at Castle Street, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru, Division No.61, New Ward No.76, for ₹30 lakhs. They entered into sale agreement dated 04.12.2007. Respondent No.2 paid ₹24 lakhs by way of advance, the husband of petitioner received the same in her presence, through cheques. He was put in possession of the said property. The husband of petitioner promised to get the revenue documents within six months. However, later respondent No.2 came to know that the properties are

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

under litigation and when approached, petitioner and her husband convinced respondent No.2 that they will get the disputes cleared. Again when respondent No.2 approached the petitioner and husband to execute, they demanded additional sum of ₹24 lakhs.

¶45

3.1 Later the husband of petitioner has executed registered gift dated 11.08.2014 in favour of petitioner. It will not bind on respondent No.2. He was always ready and willing to abide by his part of contract. Unfortunately, the husband of petitioner died during the year 2016. Petitioner has succeeded to his estate. Respondent No.2 requested her to execute the sale deed. He also got issued a legal notice dated 07.01.2017. She has not sent any reply nor come forward to execute the same. However, she is trying to interfere with the possession of respondent No.2. Though he filed complaint with the Ashok Nagar police, they have not taken any steps.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

3.2 Later, respondent No.2 came to know that the property in question belongs to Mrs.Mabel Gomes. She has acquired the same from its original owner through Sale deed dated 27.01.1982. Petitioner and her husband have sold the said property to respondent No.2 based on fabricated documents and thereby cheated him. Respondent No.2 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of this property and running his office. After the demise of her husband, petitioner has sold the said property to Smt.Brinda Rani suppressing true facts. She has filed suit in O.S.No.16497/2006, before IV Addl.City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru against Mabel Gomes. It went in favour of Mabel Gomes.

¶50

3.3 Against the interference caused by the petitioner,

¶51

when the concerned police failed to take action, respondent No.2 has filed the complaint in PCR.No.51360/2022. It is referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. At this stage, petitioner has approached this Court and secured interim order. Matter requires detailed

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

investigation. In the light of prima facie material placed on record, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶56

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶57

At the outset, it is the definite case of the

¶58

respondent No.2 that when he was searching for a property, the husband of petitioner offered to sell him an immovable property and executed sale agreement dated 04.12.2007 for a sum of ₹30 lakhs and put him in possession and though the entire sale consideration is paid, he failed to execute the sale deed. According to the respondent No.2, the husband of petitioner has executed a registered gift deed dated 11.08.2014 in favour of petitioner. Unfortunately the husband of petitioner died and that petitioner is also interfering with his possession.

¶59

In turn, petitioner has sold the said property to one Smt. Brinda Rani. Admittedly, petitioner has not filed suit for specific performance of contract or at least for

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

recovery of the sale consideration paid to the husband of petitioner, either against him or subsequent to his death against the petitioner. At the same time, the respondent No.2 also claim that the petitioner and her husband are not the owners of the property in question and on the other hand, it belongs to one Mabel Gomes and the suit in O.S.No.16497/2006 filed by Smt.Brinda Rani against Mabel Gomes went in favour of Mabel Gomes.

¶63

According to respondent No.2, the husband of petitioner was not the owner and by selling the said property to him, he cheated him. It appears for this reason the respondent No.2 did not opt for specific performance. According to the complaint averments, petitioner is not the executant of the sale agreement in his favour. Therefore, she cannot be liable for cheating respondent No.2. At the most, he may file a suit against her for recovery of the sale consideration from out of the property if any, left by her husband at the hands of petitioner, of course subject to limitation. The dispute is purely civil in nature.

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:32597 CRL.P No. 4299 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Earlier petitioner had filed complaint against

¶67

respondent No.2. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.50628/2017. In the said case, petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute and before

¶68

the Lokadalat he was acquitted. Till the disposal of the case, respondent No.2 has not chosen to file the complaint. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is purely civil in nature, continuation of the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such it is liable to be quashed and accordingly the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶71

(ii) The criminal proceedings in Cr.No.107/2022

¶72

for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 441, 442, 447, 448, 449, 503, 504 r/w 34 IPC, arising out of PCR.No.51360/2022 on the file of XXIX ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶73