Sri R Sridhara Vs State of Karnataka

ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.102/1B-1A-59 PREETHI HILL VIEW 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND RAILWAY WORKSHOP OLD MANANTHAWADI ROAD SRIRAMPURA 2^ND STAGE CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570 023

¶13

(BY SRI G. A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

SMT. SUNANDAMALA W/O. L. RAMESH REDDY

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS PROPRIETRIX: SRI ANNAPOORNESHWARI PAYING GUEST HOSTEL FOR WORKING WOMEN AT NO.976, HMT LAYOUT 6^TH BLOCK, 3^RD CROSS VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI M. R. PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT))

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN PCR.NO.14038/2018 IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 323, 447, 448 AND 354 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have challenged the First Information Report registered against them by the respondent No.1 in Crime No. 275/2018, for the offences punishable under Section 506, 406, 447, 420, 448, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They have also challenged the legality of the order dated 07.11.2018 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, referring the private

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

complaint in PCR No.14038/2018 for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) to the Station House Officer (‘S.H.O’ for brevity), Vidyaranyapura Police Station.

¶32

The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in PCR No.14038/2018 contending that she is the niece of the petitioner No.1. Both of them had agreed to establish a P.G. Centre for Working Women at Bengaluru City and for that purpose, they had taken a property on lease from its owners on a monthly rent of Rs.85,000/- in terms of a rent agreement dated 05.08.2016. She claimed that she had established the P.G Centre and was running it under the name and style ‘Annapoorneshwari P.G. (working women’s hostel)’ by obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Authorities. She alleged that as per the understanding between her and the petitioner No.1, the rent agreement was entered into in the name of the petitioner No.1 and that he paid the refundable security deposit while the investment for establishing the P.G. Centre was made by her alone. She alleged that it was agreed that as per the understanding between her and the petitioner No.1, she would return the security deposit paid by the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioner No.1 within two years along with interest. She alleged that she paid interest to the petitioner No.1 on the refundable security deposit paid by him for establishing the P.G. Centre. She contends that from the date of the rental agreement till the date the property was occupied by her, she was running the P.G. Centre and had invested huge sums of money and she alone was paying the rent to the landlord. She claimed that the petitioner No.1 was not interested to continue the business with her and therefore, he executed a general power of attorney authorizing her to deal with the property on his behalf. In the said power of attorney, the petitioner No.1 had claimed that the respondent No.2 is a co-tenant and that he had authorized her to do all necessary acts in respect of the property and also negotiate with the landlords as and when required for the purpose of transfer of tenancy rights. She contends that as per the understanding between her and the petitioner No.1, she paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards reimbursement of the advance amount paid by him to the landlords under the rental agreement dated 05.08.2016 along with goodwill. She further contends that the petitioner No.1 had agreed that following such payment, he

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

would request the owners of the property to renew the tenancy in the name of the respondent No.2 and execute a rental agreement in the name of the respondent No.2 for the remaining period of three years. She contends that in good faith, she had returned the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 along with goodwill of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/with the hope that the petitioner No.1 will come and consent to owners of the property for transfer of tenancy rights in her favour and to execute a fresh rental agreement in her favour for the balance three years. She contended that the petitioner No.1 even after receipt of a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- failed to come forward and give his consent to the owners of the property to execute a rental agreement in her name even though she had requested him several times. She claimed that though the petitioner No.1 agreed to come and do the needful, but later he turned hostile and refused to give consent for transfer of the tenancy rights by the owners of the property in her favour. She contended that she, therefore, by a notice dated 01.08.2018, called upon the petitioner No.1 to come forward and cooperate in the execution of a rental agreement in her favour. She contends that instead of complying her

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

request, the petitioner No.1 colluded with the owners of the property and tried to evict her from the property without following the due process of law. She also alleged that the owners of the property on 03.08.2018 attempted to dispossess her from the property in question. With these and other contentions, she contended that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 447, 448 and 354 of IPC.

¶43

The Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and in terms of the order dated 07.11.2018, referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O., Vidyaranyapura Police Station. The respondent No. 1 thereafter registered a F.I.R in Crime No.275/2018 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R are before this Court and they have also challenged the order dated 07.11.2018 referring the private complaint to the Police as stated above for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a

¶45

perusal of the entire private complaint would show that this is

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

purely a civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 which is given a criminal flavour. He contends that the jurisdictional Police also not noticing the fact that the case did not present any of the characteristics of an offence punishable under Sections 406, 447 and 420 of IPC, blindly proceeded to register the FIR against the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that this is an abuse of the process of law and Courts and hence, the impugned criminal action initiated by the Trial Court against the petitioners is liable to be halted.

¶50

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶51

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that the fact that the petitioner No.1 has received the sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from the respondent No.2 is not in dispute and therefore, having regard to the assertions made in the private complaint, the respondent No.2 had made out a case for an offence under Section 406 of IPC. He, therefore, contends that this is not a case where proceedings have to be quashed.

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶56

learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.

¶57

A perusal of the private complaint would go to show that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 had entered into an understanding to establish a P.G Centre for women. It also appears that the petitioner No.1 had paid the initial security deposit to the owners of the property to take the building on rent and a rental agreement was also executed in his name. The respondent No.2 alleged that she had invested huge sum of money for the establishment of the P.G Centre and that the petitioner No.1 had not made any contribution for the same. She alleged that over a period of time, she returned the investment made by the petitioner No.1 along with certain amount of goodwill and that the petitioner No.1 agreed to ensure transfer of the tenancy in her favour. However, the petitioner No.1 defaulted on that and hence, the respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint, which was referred by the Trial Court for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O., Vidyaranyapura Police Station. It also appears that the respondent No.2 had filed a suit in O.S No.6355/2018

¶58

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:12963 CRL.P No. 9647 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

against the petitioner No.1 herein and three others before the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for perpetual injunction which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.07.2023. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the private complaint did not show any characteristics of an offence, more particularly an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. On the other hand, a civil dispute was given a criminal colour and the respondent No.1 without going into the private complaint, blindly registered an F.I.R against the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this is a fit case where this Court should exercise jurisdiction and set at nought the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners.

¶61

Consequently this petition is allowed . The F.I.R registered against the petitioners by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.275/2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 406, 447, 420, 448, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, is quashed. The order dated 07.11.2018 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in PCR No.14038/2018 referring the complaint for investigation under

¶62