Sri K v Naidu Vs the State by

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0164/2019 DTD 02.11.2019 VIDE ANNX-C REGISTERED BY THE R-1 AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE IN PURSUANCE OF CR.NO.0164/2019 DTD 02.11.2019 VIDE ANNX-C REGISTERED BY THE R-1 VIDYARANAPURA POLICE STATION,

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:598 WP No. 12993 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

BENGALURU CONSEQUENT UPON QUASH THE SAME GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner being the accused in Crime No.164/2019 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 511, 380, 465, 454, 420, 457 and 468 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner being the owner of flat No.13.6.1, Block No.E1, Tower No.13 situated at 6^th floor, containing three bed room apartment, having super built-up area of 1225 Sq.ft, sold the same in favour of respondent No.2 under the sale deed dated 30.03.2016. However, the petitioner sold the very same apartment in favour of one M/s Patel Ventures under the registered sale deed dated 13.11.2018. Thereby, he has committed the offences under Sections 511, 380, 465, 454,

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:598 WP No. 12993 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

420, 457 and 468 of IPC. The first information was filed and FIR came to be registered on 02.11.2019.

¶33

Heard Sri. Nanjya Reddy P N, learned counsel for

¶34

the petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamy R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, inadvertently such a sale deed was executed on 13.11.2018 and after realizing the mistake, the petitioner had already cancelled the sale deed dated 13.11.2018 executed in favour of M/s Patel Ventures and the same is produced as per AnnexureE. He also contends that a confirmation deed was executed by M/s Patel Ventures in favour of respondent No.2 as per Annexure-D and thereby all the disputes were set at rest. Under such circumstances, he prays for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and the same is admitted by him. Subsequent execution of cancellation deed or confirmation deed will not absolve the

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:598 WP No. 12993 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

liability on the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶42

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶43

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶44

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶45

REASONS

¶46

The allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner is of serious nature. After executing registered sale deed dated 30.03.2016, the petitioner ventured to execute another sale deed dated 13.11.2018 in favour of M/s Patel Ventures. Even though, it is contended that by inadvertence such a sale deed was executed, the same cannot be accepted. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had already executed the deed of cancellation of sale deed dated 13.11.2018 on 04.11.2019, i.e., after registration of the FIR.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:598 WP No. 12993 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The copy of which is produced as per Annexure-E. Annexure-D is dated 14.11.2019, which is deed of confirmation executed by M/s Patel Ventures in favour of respondent No.2.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the damages and loss caused to respondent No.2 is already made good. However, respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court. Atleast immediately after registration of FIR, cancellation deed and confirmation deed came to be executed. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by prosecuting him. Hence, I am of the opinion that criminal case registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The petition is allowed .

¶54

ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in Crime No.164/2019 of

¶55