Karnataka High Court
Sri B A Ravishankar vs State By on 18 December, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2019 (1) AKR 748
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4440 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI B A RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI ARERANGAIAH
R/AT 939, 2ND A CROSS
I BLOCK 3RD STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE 560079. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SREEDHAR N.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 079
2. SRI K T GURUPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SRI K N T GOWDA
3. SMT DIVYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
W/O SRI K T GURUPRASAD
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO 101/A, 7TH BLOCK
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI
NEAR BDA COMPLEX,
2
BANGALORE 560079. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP, FOR R1;
SRI K VARAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.
NO.325/2013 IN PCR NO.9444/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 418,
419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 470 AND 471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR in Crime No.325/2013 on the basis of the order passed in PCR No.9444/2013 by the learned V ACMM for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. The counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is absent. No representation.
3
3. The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the private complaint filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city and the order passed by the learned Magistrate the respondent police have registered the case in Crime No.325/2013. The allegations are that the petitioner and other accused had managed to take blank cheques, on demand promissory note, title deeds of immovable properties belonging to the complainants and various other documents at the time of lending loan. The complainants have repaid the entire loan amount, but the petitioner and other accused have failed to return the documents and the cheques issued by the complainants. Thereafter the petitioner and other accused in order to extract more amount from the complainants filed a Original Suit No.1982/2013 for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The petitioner and other accused have committed the wrongful acts and the aforesaid offences. 4
4. During the course of arguments the counsel submitted that the Original Suit No.1982/2013 filed by the petitioner was decreed by XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge (CCH 40) by order dated 07.01.2016 and the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 15.09.2011 after receiving balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs. Thereafter the petitioner had filed a Execution Petition No.1121/2016 for execution of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.1982/2013. As per the order passed in EX.P.No.1121/2016 the Court Commissioner namely, the Shirastedar had executed a sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Nagarbavi, Bengaluru in favour of the decree holder who is the petitioner in the preset petition and the same was registered as document No.7312/16-17 dated 16.11.2016 vide receipt No.7753. In the said execution petition both petitioner/the decree holder and complainant who is judgment debtor/respondent No.2 5 have filed a memo. In the memo filed by the respondent No.2/complainant who is the JDR in execution petition has stated that he has no objection for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs deposited by the petitioner (decree holder) before the Hon'ble Court on 6.2.2016 in OS No.1982/2013 vide RO No.3255 dated 8.2.2016 and JD NO.3360. In view of the memo filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 complainant the matter was settled. As per the out of Court settlement arrived between the parties the petitioner has executed a sale deed in respect of the property purchased by him as per the orders of Execution Petition in favour of brother-in-law of the complainant. As such, the allegations made in the private complaint and the FIR registered on the basis of the said complaint do not survive for consideration.
5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their counsel have not appeared before the Court. As such, this Court had no opportunity to hear their submissions. 6
6. The counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the entire records in Ex.P.No.1121/2016. These records substantiate and support the contention of the argument submitted by the counsel for the petitioner.
7. As already stated above, the allegations made against the petitioner and other accused are that they had managed to take cheques, demand promissory notes, title deeds, etc., But the documents produced by the counsel for the petitioner goes to show that the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless.
8. In a decision reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
" 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of 7 decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation 8 by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.9
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The facts of this case comes under the category of 7. As such there are valid grounds for quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following-
ORDER The Criminal petition is allowed.
Proceedings in Crime No.325/2013 in PCR No.9444/2013 on the file of the V A.C.M.M. for the 10 offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl