Karnataka High Court
Sahara City Homes Ballari vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2023
1 CRL.P NO.100319/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100319/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SAHARA CITY HOMES BALLARI
SITE NO.13-15,
SHAKHTI NAGAR, NEAR HORAMAVU SIGNAL,
RING ROAD, BENGALURU-3,
OFFICE KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX,
ALGANJ, LUCKNOW-22,
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH,
RPTD. BY THAPAS KUMAR BASAK.
2. RAJEEV RANJAN SING,
S/O PUSHKAL SINGH
AGE: 43, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O 5/102, DEEPAK DELUXE,
SAHARA GRACE,
JANAKIPURAM, LUCKNOW,
(U.P.) LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH.
3. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH,
S/O HARISH CHANDRA SINGH,
AGE: 62, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O NO.21/304, NEW MALHAR,
SAHARA STREET, JANAKIPURAM,
LUCKNOW (U.P.) LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH.
4. RUDRANATH YADAV,
S/O RAM LAKHAN YADAV,
2 CRL.P NO.100319/2022
AGE: 50, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO.2/553, SECTOR-H,
JANAKIPURAM,
LUCKNOW (U.P.) LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH.
5. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,
S/O RAM JANAM SINGH,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AGE: 57, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN,
Digitally signed by
R/O H.NO.E2/123, SECTOR-C,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW (U.P.)
Date: 2023.05.31
11:36:05 -0700
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH.
6. THAPAS KUMAR BASAK,
S/O SUBODH KUMAR BASAK,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O UNIQUE-301,
ARTRIA AKRUTHI COMPLEX,
N.S.PHADKE MARG,
SAI MUMBAI CITY, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA.
7. SMT. BOMMIREDDY PRAMILADEVI,
W/O RAM MOHAN REDDY,
AGE: 41, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE,
NANDYAL MANDAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT,
A.P.KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH.
8. MALEPATI NAGESHWARA RAO,
S/O M.SHESHAIAH,
AGE: 75, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CHANGALAMARI VILLAGE,
KURNOOL, DIST: KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHANKAR P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
3 CRL.P NO.100319/2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS COWL BAZAR P.S.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580 011.
2. V.H.SREENIVASULU,
S/O LATE V.GULUGAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O W.NO.32,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
NAGALAKERE,
BALLARI-HOSAPETE ROAD,
BALLARI, KARNATAKA-583201.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
N.H.A.I. LLC COLONY,
DEVI NAGAR, BALLARI - 583104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a) QUASH FIR BEARING REGISTRATION
NUMBER COWL BAZAR P.S. 128/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 471, 468, 12B R/W
SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BALLARI INSOFAR AS
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY; b) PASS ANY SUCH ORDERS/RELIEF AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT JUST AND EXPEDIENT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
19.04.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4 CRL.P NO.100319/2022
ORDER
Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 have filed this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.128/2021 of Cowl Bazar P.S for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B r/w Section 34 I.P.C pending on the file of II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari.
2. Petitioners have contended that though complainant is an alien to the entire transaction and has no locus standi, only to harass, blackmail and extort money from the petitioners, he has chosen to file a false complaint. If at all complainant was to oppose the sanction of compensation, his remedy would lie under Section 3H of National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956, wherein the dispute would be referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. Only after O.S.No.43/2008 filed by the complainant came to 5 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 be dismissed, compensation was released as per the assignment deed.
2.1 Complaint is a clever attempt to cloak a purely civil dispute with a criminal case. There is no dispute of ownership of respondent No.2 in the property. The remedy of complainant only becomes valid at the time of disposal of the appeal, if at all it is decided in his favour. As it stands, the complainant has no locus standi to have a say in any transaction relating to the property in question. The facts of the case do not indicate any criminal intention, let alone overt acts that would constitute the ingredients of alleged offences. The complaint is liable to be quashed based on the complaint averments inasmuch as the very documents relied upon by the complainant.
2.2 In O.S.No.43/2008, filed by the complainant and others seeking partition of 2/5th share in Sy.No.894/B measuring 9.39 acres is dismissed by the trial Court. RFA.No.100259/2015, filed against the said judgment and 6 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 decree is also dismissed on 28.07.2022. Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not admitted. Consequently, the matter has attained finality. Despite the same, complainant has chosen to file a false complaint. Even after coming to know about these developments, the Investigating Officer is proceeding with the investigation. In the fact situation Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and prays to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings.
2.3 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Nand Kishore Prasad and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another 1 (Nand Kishore)
(ii) Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another2 (Usha Chakraborty) 1 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 395 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 7 CRL.P NO.100319/2022
3. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that in the light of specific allegations made in the complaint, it is necessary to conduct detailed investigation and prays to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. The subject matter of this complaint is land in Sy.No.894/B measuring 9 acres 39 cents situated at Kolagallu Village of Ballari Taluk and District. Complainant is claiming right and share in this property through his great grand father V.Hulugappa. The said Hulugappa had two wives. The first wife had two sons and the second wife had three sons. The legal heirs of the two sons of first wife filed suit O.S.No.43/2008 against the legal heirs of three sons of Hulugappa through his second wife for partition and separate possession of properties therein including Sy.No.894/B. However, the said suit came to be dismissed on the ground that already a partition has taken place on 19.04.1974 which 8 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 is a registered partition deed and as such plaintiffs therein cannot claim share. The said judgment and decree is confirmed in RFA.No.100259/2015 dated 28.07.2022. Though the complainant and others have approached Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.003952/2023, it is yet to be admitted. Consequently there is no interim order operating in favour of complainant and others who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.43/2008.
6. As evident from the complaint averments, the children of second wife of Vadde Hulagappa have sold Sy.No.894/B measuring 9 acres 39 guntas to one Kodanda Ramudu through registered sale deed dated 01.03.1996. In turn he has sold the said land to accused No.2 Rajeev Ranjan Singh through a registered sale deed dated 03.12.2004. During the pendency of suit in O.S.No.43/2008, accused No.2 Rajeev Ranjan Singh has entered into an unregistered partnership deed with accused No.1 - M/s Sahara City Homes on 01.04.2013 for development of township, housing project, construction of building in the said land and adjoining lands. 9 CRL.P NO.100319/2022
7. Meanwhile, the SEBI i.e., Security Exchange of Board of India filed C.A.No.9813 & 9833/2011 and CPC.No.260/2013 in C.A.No.8643/2012 against Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd and others before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi. In the said petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted SEBI to sell the aforesaid land i.e., Sy.No.894/B and deposit the amount with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard accused No.1 agreed to sell the said land to accused No.10 for Rs.30 Crores. Since he could deposit only Rs.3 Crores, the sale did not went through.
8. In the interregnum, the National Highways Authority of India has acquired portion of the land measuring 12060 Sq.Mts for the purpose of laying four lane road. Accused Nos.2 to 6 and 10 have entered into an assignment deed dated 11.01.2019 authorising accused Nos.7 to 9 to draw the compensation from the Special Land Acquisition Officer. After the dismissal of the suit and in the light of not having any interim order in the favour of the complainant 10 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 and others who are plaintiffs, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has permitted accused Nos.7 to 9 to draw the compensation in a sum of Rs.8,37,26,757/-, by executing an indemnity bond.
9. Being aggrieved by the same and alleging that the withdrawing of the compensation amount by accused Nos.7 to 9 amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 471, 468, 120-B r/w Section 34 I.P.C, complainant have chosen to file the private complaint against accused Nos.1 to
10. In the present petition, accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 have challenged the pendency of the proceedings and seeking quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The claim of complainant and others for partition and separate possession of 2/5th share in all the suit schedule properties including the land in Sy.No.894/B measuring 9 acres 39 guntas is rejected by the Civil Court. The said 11 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 finding is confirmed by this Court in RFA.No.100259/2015. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order is yet to be admitted. Consequently, there is no interim order operating against accused persons. Such being the case, the complainant is trying to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal case. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Chakraborty and Nand Kishore's referred to supra relied upon by the petitioners, the present complaint is nothing but a arm twisting method to force the accused persons to come to terms with the complainant.
11. Moreover having regard to the fact that the offences alleged are cognizable, as required under Section 154 Cr.P.C, the complainant is required to approach the jurisdictional police. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case, if the concerned police fails to receive the complaint and register the case and commence the investigation, then the complainant is required to approach the higher Police Officer by sending the complaint through RPAD. Only on failure of the higher Police Officer 12 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 also either to direct the jurisdictional police to register the case and commence the investigation or take up the investigation by itself, then the complainant is supposed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with the private complaint.
12. In the complaint, the complainant is required to specifically plead that he had approached the jurisdictional police and also the higher Police Officer and their failure to register the case. In addition the complainant is also required to produce proof of complaint being given to the concerned police and also the higher Police Officer and their failure. He is also required to produce the proof of the complaint being sent to the higher Police Officer through post.
13. The responsibility of the complainant would not end here. In support of these averments, the complainant is required to file affidavit specifying all these details and also the steps taken by the complainant by approaching the concerned police as well as the higher Police Officer. Even 13 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 though in the complaint, complainant has pleaded that he approached the jurisdictional police with the complaint, but they failed to entertain it, there is no pleadings that he also approached the higher Police Officer. He has not produced any proof of his attempts being made to file the complaint with the jurisdictional police and also sending the complaint to the higher Police Officer. He has also not filed any affidavit in support of his claim. The jurisdictional Magistrate without application of mind and without ascertaining all these aspects has blindly referred the complaint to the concerned police for investigation.
14. In fact from the very averments of the complaint, it is evident and crystal clear that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Without ascertaining these aspect also, the jurisdictional Magistrate has simply referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Having regard to these aspects and in the fact situation, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to 14 CRL.P NO.100319/2022 abuse of the process of Court. If ultimately Special Leave Petition is admitted and complainant and others who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.43/2008 succeeds in getting a decree for 2/5th share in the property in question, they are at liberty to claim proportionate compensation from accused Nos.7 to 9 who have admittedly withdrawn the compensation by executing an indemnity bond. Such being the case, I hold that the petition succeeds and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The criminal proceedings initiated in Cr.No.128/2021 of Cowl Bazar P.S for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471, 468, 120-B r/w Section 34 I.P.C pending on the file of II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari is quashed so far as petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE RR