Karnataka High Court
Dr G Ramachandrappa S/O Govindappa vs Smt Padma Ramachandrappa W/O Dr G ... on 6 January, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 CRI. L. J. 2666, 2010 (2) AIR KANT HCR 434, (2010) 3 KCCR 1821, (2010) 4 CRIMES 573, (2010) 6 KANT LJ 106, (2010) 3 ALLCRILR 743
IN TRE DHCP COURT OF BRARNATABA AT BANGALORE DATED PEEPS UPPED GP DANY Ol? GANDLARY 201 0 ' o BE ORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICEKN KESHAVANARAYANA ® a : ' , . : . OOPAAINGA TPP PION "a ay V9 i - , BE CRIMINAL PETEHION NO.S21/2006 Se terete' CPW an Co yde chamber CRIMINAL PRT PRON NOLB2ZO/ 2006" = : yh. fated IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.82 1.Or 2006... 7 A BIS PWN: | DR G RAMACHANDIRAPPA: S/O GOVINDAPPAT AGED ABCRUT SSYEARS | R/AT S ROA 74. KODATHEVILLAGE VARTHUR OBL, SARGAPURA ROAD BANGALORE SCUTTLE TALUK | (VEAW BANGALORE BAST PRT ETTON fobe IBY SRE ALL BEIAGAVANSADV) AND): -- SMP PADMA RAMACHANDRAPPA W/O PRG RAMACHANDRAPPA 2 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RLAT NG 10. BISHOPS COURT . JOHN GARNE WAY. OXFORD ORB. OFX, LK PRESENTLY R/AT NO 4/3. LOVEDALE. ALP NAGAR. TL PHASE, BANGALORE 78 | --. RESPONDENT
(BY SRE SUDINDRANATEE ADY FOR M/S. SUDINDIRA SAI ASSOCIATES) a we THESE PETYPIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THES DAY. THEE COURT MADE TIHe FOLLOWING: , OISIIETS As both the parties ta these petitions arc eamimon, and since these petitions involve common quesuons' of fact and Jaw. they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order,
2. in both these petitions fled iander Section 482 of CrP.C.. the Common peiiioner whe. is accused No. | in C.C.No.5557/04 and CoC Nol 9835/04 on the file of the TE Addh. CMM. Bangalore:-has sought quashing of the criminal proceceings-in those cases. 7 ws: Phe cominon -espondent in both these petitions 'is. the complainant before the learned Magistrate, It is 'aanidispated iact that the respondent is the wile of the petitioner. their marriage having been solemnized on . : Ve. 10. 1980 and trom oom of the said wedlock two Children are born. ft is also an undisputed fact that after the marriage both hisband anc wite livecl together in UK. fll the year 2000. According to the respoucerit. between 1994 and 1997. a site in) BTM Layouts. Bangalore was aequired in the mame of the petitioner. from out of the joint Investment made by cher and he husband at a cost of Rs.24.50.000/ 7 the sale deed dated O5.1 1.1997 was obtained in favoan. of the petitioner herein. According wo she. respondent- complainant. in. He year 2000" the © sure family came back to Indies With an intention to settle down at Bangalore.» However. since tivwir daughter could not secure * a seat, Sin Medical College in India, the complainané along, with her children went back to U-K..
"while the petitioner husband stayed back in India and
- slibsequently also. the petitioner did not join the wile and children in UK. VThereatter. the respondent came "to know that in the sale deed dated 05.11.1997. the petitioner herein with a dishonest intention of
--ehminating her contrition for acquisition of the property, had shown the total sale consideration of only Rs.9.50,.000/-. though the 1otal sale consideration, paid was Rs.24.50.000/-. According to the scapoiident'. complainant, she further jearnt that the very ile was ; sold by the petitioner herein nnider the revisiered Sale. deed dated 06.11.2005 a avon ol Sti Murali Puttaparthi and P.Aswathararayana, fora sum of Rs.86.00.000 /-. however. witha dishonest itention, the consideration unier Hie sale decd-was shower ory as Rs.30.94, 0007" LU _ nae 7 1 these -ceircumstanees, the respondent: 'ited 'pire camp bairs orp 2-11-2004, one relating io » the sale deed dated 05.11.1997 and the other rea to Sale deed dated OG.11.2003 alleging offence
- Linder Section 423 oF TPC.
4. UPmoiw presentation of the complaints. the ~ learned'. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alieged and affer recording sworn staternent of the complainant, issued simmons to the petitioner herein h-
and oolhler persons arrayed as accused im the two eomplaints. Pursuant to the service of surmmeris, thie petitioner herein appeared before the learned' Magistrate in both the complaints and o participated in the. proceedings. tn the meanwhile. Murali Puttaparthi and | P.Ashwathanaravana who had been arrayed | as accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.N9. 19835 04 fled petition before this) Court under Section | 48D CrP.C. in eriminal petition No. 358/05 secking quashing of the proceedings avainst thein. "tHe said petifion caine io be allowed by this Court by order dated (4.052005 and consequently the proceedings Bes thew i CC No. PS535/04 came 10 be quashed. Mis thereatier the petitioner has © presented These Iwo pelifious under Section 482 Cr.P.c, . OF 15.02.2008. inter-aHa on the grounds that the allegations made i tite Complaints. sworn statements vand the documents produced by the complainant taken
- Hat then face vahie do not disclose any offence much less ~The offence punishable under Section 423 EPC as alleged a 4 and inspite of the same. the learned) Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same and has tssied si pnmions and that the prosecution has been launehed nialicior sly.
to wreck personal vengeance against, (ne petitioner who ; is the husband of the complainant anil {his matice-as | well as the vengeance attitude. of the comiplainanit is clear from the fact Chat she hac ited several criminal and civil cases against hin, AL was. alse contended that the complain U Hed in the year 2004 int respect of the sale deed '05.61 9997 -is barred by limitation ander Section 466.Cr.P.C and this aspect of the matter has not beer, considered at all iy the learned Magistrate al the time of iaking cognizance as stich, the proceedings pending before the iearned Magistrate are liable to be "qtiashed., -
SoUpon service of notice of these petitions, the respondent has appeared through her learned Counsel. ~~} nave heard both sides. a
6. Sri AVH. Bhagavan. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both these petitions contended that. even if fhe allegations made in the complaini.as well as. the sworn staiement anc tlic documents produced along' with fhe complanis are. rer] as a, whole, they o'er, make out any prima ficie. ease "for ihe offence punishable uneer Seciion 4 25 APC, as "such, the cognizance taken by J the learned "Magistrate is illegal and the proccedivs are Hable te be qvieished. 7 He further contended that the complaint based on the sale deecd=dated O5-11.1997 is clearly barred by time and since. 130 explanation is fortheorning on the part of the complairiant in éermis of Section 470 Cr.e.c,, the learned Magistrate could not Rave taken cognizance of the offence alleged on a complaint barred by time. He ~ further contended that though the allegations made in the complaint prima facie indicate civil dispute, ceertainly ii cannot be a ground for iutiation of criminal ee the or viminal proceedings initiated » PETES aeeused and sinec the allegation mice i the complaint as well as the sworn statement and the documents produced along with the coniplait read as a whole. makes out a prima lacie case against the petitioner for. - offence under Section 425 1PC, (his Court ciumo! qniask the proceedings in exercise ol powe ramder $ Sev tien 482 Cr P.c.
9, lr is his farther : contention r iat the petitioner having part nipated Sn "the - proceedings belore the cra rr OE Tide Pover one year and having kepi aoe, cariiet "be pomnitied to seek quashing of the proceedings at a belated siage. therelore these petitions are liable 10 be, quashed on the ground of delay and laches. 7 hy this behalf, fe placed reliance on the decision of Orissa Hieh Court in the case of BATA ALIAS BAT AK RUSHNA BEHERA AND OTHERS VS. ANAMA : ; BEHERA reported In 1990 Crii.d. Ji1O and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in HE (2002) DMC Gl. He further contended thatthe quashing of criminal proceedings against: the. awe. purchasers under the sale deed dated 06.11.2003 -by - this Court in Criminal Petition No.$58/05 eannet-.be. taken advantage of by the petitioner, te conteid. that criminal proceedings shouldbe -qnashed against him also, According to the tearred counsel. the petitioners therein stand on a different footing than the petitioner herein and the-al regadious made inthe complaint for the offence under Section 425 IPC is directly against the a . . & petitioner herein sas suck, che order in Criminal Petition No.358/05 'does not onic in the way of contirmiing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. ~ 102 He further contended that since in the light of the allegations made in the complaint petitions about the complainant gaining knowledge of the contents of tne sale deed dated 05.01.1997 only in the month of February 2004. the compraint filed on 02.11.2004 is within the period of limitation from the Cate. 'af knowledge as provided by Section 469 (1) (by lot Cr PC and therefore. the learmed Magistrate is jlusrified - irr. taking cognizance of the offence alleged. if is alse his. contention that to find owt as to whether any. criminal proceeding in exercise of pewer under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. is required lo be quasited or not, the Court is required Lo examine the compliing aise whole without examining "the "inerits , Of "tlie allegations or its genuineness. and "therelore at this stage, this Court cannot © undertake. deiaied examination of -- the allegations ii the comptaiit to find out as to whether the. atlegations Yiade therein are genuine and "accepiabtes Fherefore at this stage the allegations made in the compkhiints with regard to the dishonest intention eaith which the petitioner fad miade false statement in the sale deeds revarding consideration and with regard to the knowledge of the complainant of stich act. will a wed have to be accepted at its faee vahic ancl since those allegations are sufficient to make out a prima lacie ease for an offence under Section 423 IPC, (here arene. merits in these petitions and they are liable to "be ; dismissed, Li. In the faets and circumstance of the case and in the light of the rival sipbmissions made, the point that. arise lor my consideration Is cwhether the criminal proceedings. pending. betor: thes learned Magistrate are requised to. be "qnasted, i, exercise of power ureer Section 482 Crepe
12. bith case of M /sJndian OH Corporation Vs. " NEPC reek Linited referred to supra, the Flon'ble : Supreme Court att er relerriug to various judgments has noted the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction ounder Section #482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings in para-9 as under:
"oy, principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cade of, Criminal Procedure to quash complaints ard erviminal proceedings have been stated anc reiterated by this Court in several decisians. To mention afew ~~ XN NX XX & XXNXXANXNXXNNNNNNN.
XXXNXKXXXXNNNXXXNNNX XNXNXNNNNNNNXNOAXULNEX 3 The principles, relevant. to.our purpose are:
(i) A copiplairre, care. be quashed where .ovie allegations made in the > ~-vomplaint. even if they are taken at theirtace valne and accepted in their entirety. do not prima facie constitute ey Offence or make oul the case ~ alleved against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole. but without examining the merits of the alegations. Neither a detailed ineptiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the (i1i} reliability or vemuineness of -- the allegations in the complaint. is warrantied while examining prayer for :
quashing of a complaint. | -
A complaint may also' -be quashed ~ where it is a elear abuse. of the,» precess of the "court as when the eriminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mata, lides/malice for wreaking venveanceor, to case Charm. or where the atlegations are cabsurcd-avict inberenthy improbable, Phe pawer toe quash shall riot, liowever, beised fo stifle or seutile a legiliimete. prosecution. -- The power shod: be used sparingly anc with ahbutident cecion, Phe complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint. merely on the eround that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail. tne proceedings should net be quashed, © Qeashing of the complaint is.
warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even. the basic. facts which are absolutely Snecessarys ; lor making out tie offence, . | A given set of facts muy make onti (a) yurely a ¢§vib wrong: or. (Ib) pturely a criminal offence: or (ep a. civil wrong cas calso a ccriminal "sifence, A coeercial Waosaction or a nS contractual -dispute. apart from furdshig a case of aetion tor secking remicily in civil law, may aiso bivelve ae criminal offenee. As the mature and seope of a civil proceedings are different from a ~eriminal proceeding, the mere fact "rat fhe complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract. for which a civil remedy is available or fas been availed, is not by itself a greund to quash the fit criminal proceedings. The fest is whether the allegations in | he.
complaint disclose a criminal offeree on or mot" 7
13. As noticed above. there is ho dispute that, the ; petitioner is the -- husbarid of the. respondent:
complainant. The cpa ined on ¢ 02.1 21.2004 alleging offence uncer Sention 49 42! 3 oP a "Se etion 423 IPC reads as under
423. Dishonest to fraudulent 'execution of deed ef transfer containing false statement of consideration - :
Whoever dishonestiy or frandulenthy signs, executes ar becomes st peurfy to any deed or instruments, Which purperts to transter or subj ect. to any charge any property, or any "Jnterést™ therein, and: which contains any false s sitement relating to the consideration for such travisfer or charge. or relating to the _ person or a persons for whose use or benefit 'it is really infendec to operate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term whieh may extend to iwo vears. or with fine. or with both, fd. In the two complaints filed before Ihe learned. Magistrate. the allegations have -been made that ithe - complainant has been a working woman Irom the year. 1990 and thus both the coniplainant as well as "her husband together make sonic iavestments..by way of bank deposits. life instirayse payments and also investments Orr in mn ovable property' a Vd dia particularly ai Banyalore. i iS tarther averred dit the complaiat that un Immiovable property: being a vacant site measuring Least Io. West GON and North ro South S44. in all . sn | NeaAsuriny 'SO40, sq. fh Situated at No.S. Iv Phase. 1s! 3 gooey i = stave, PIM. Layout. Bangatore was purchased with the "jomt finds of the complainant and the first accused arid also ineituded joint family funds. It is farther averred ~ that i ne complainant has documentary evidence to show that the momes were eontribiired for the purpose ol purchasing Wie said immovable property, On aecoun be of longstanding husband and wife relationship. with the children born out of the wedlock. the complainant contribiited the amounts for the purpose. of joi purchase of the tminovable properey. Dutt till 08.03.2004 :
the complainant had not scen any documents tor having. nade joint investments/jouit = purenase of "the- said immovable property.
Lo. His notin disprie chat tlie site hearmy NOLO, Is Stage. | : | Blase. EAM : ayoie Bangatore, was purchased by the peritiones herein under the registered sale deed dated 95-1 11997, according to the allegation made in Lise coniplaints. the sale consideration shown in the sale. deed was Rs.9.50,000/- However it is) the specitic aliedation of the cemplainant that the real sale consideration. was Rs.24,50.000/- and she had contributed equally for acquisition of the said property. However, aceording to the complaint allegations. the petitioner herein in order ta deceive and defeat her right oF in the said site. and with | a dishonest intention, had. ade a a false statement with regard to the 'sale cere ation 1 by only showing the. payments, made by 7 : 1 thre wag cheques to the vendor. : "Shiney in other complaint, allegations vave. been made w . oe. 4
considered opinion. the allegations made in the complaint if read as a whole, make out a prima Facie case attracting the ingredicnts of Section 423 IPC. The." faets as to how much amount the complamant has ~ contributed. and the mode of such payment, are all the. matters of evidence during tle. trial. The. documents produced along with the complaint namely, copy of the agreement entercd nto. oni 08,09. 1994 prima facie indicates thar, the "tou Sale. ccrisideration was Rs.24.50.C00/> aiid inthe sale decd dated 05.11.1997 the sale eondileration tindicated ts only Rs.9.50,000/>-. Reading of he copy of written statement filed by the purehasers-in the Crit suit filed by the respondent tor ~ partition, an OS: No.7278/2004, which is produced \ atone with the complaint prima facie indicate that the real sale consideration for the sale of property under "sale "deed dated) O6.11.2008 was Rs.86.00,000/- whereas. the apparent consideration in the sale deed ts Rs 30.24.000/.. H these allegations are proved during I trial. if would certainly attract the offence under Section 423 1PC. 'Pherefore at this stave, there are prima facie materials ou record fo aitract the provisies of tho offenee under Section 423 1PC. Pherefore. the learned Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance of the. offence alleged in the compiaiit and issuing sucmions to the accused.
16. In respect af he first. sale' deed dated 05.11.1997. the sonipiai file: of: 62.11.2004, may be said to be beyead the. period of limitation as provided ander Section 468° CrP, However as per Section 469 (3) (b) of CrP.C. the period of limitation. im relation to an offerice, would commence where the conunission of the offence was rot known to the person aggrieved by the-plfence, trom the first day on which such offence comes 'to the knowledge of suelt person. Tt is the definite allegation made in the complaint that the Complainant had no knowledge of the contents of the I ane sale deed dated O5.1 0.199% till February 2004 and it is only after she obtained the certified copy of the sale deed. sue came to kniow about the false statement made i the sale deed regarding the. sale "couisideration:, - Therefore prima facie on the basis of this aliegation. ic eannot be said that the complaint is barred' by time. However. this matier cain also. be agitated. by the aed aecused during the 'trial Said bring Ou sufficient material on record. in he strecsedis in bringing out material on record: to show thi the complainant had knowledge of the Pontents of the sale deed mueti prior to Febreary S004. ie is Still open io the petitioner lo urse the Trial Court lo dismiss ihe complaint on the ground of imitation, 1 fowever at this stage. the allegations made i the-complaint is prima facie sulficient to hold thet the. complaint is im lime in terms of Section an 469(1 HoPof Crk, bo
17. No doubt in Criminal Petition No.358/2005, this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings. mn CC LNG. 19835/2004 against the accused Nos.2 and oe who are the purehascrs inder. the, sate decd 'dated . 06.11.2003. Having regard to the allégat ins: rade:in | ithe complaint and the grounds on whieh proseedings are quashed against necused Nes.2 and 3 therein, I see considerable force in 'the contention. of the learned Counsel for the responders that ihe sail order quashing the proceerlings against saceused Nos.2 and 3 has no etlect on continntiny the proceedings against the present petitioner. . The "ease. against the present petitioner stands on 2 different footing than the case against the acensed: Nos.2 cand 3 vnerein. The allegation of dishonest, "aeention to) 6deceive the right of the respondent-complainant and for that purpose false ~ "atatement regarding sale consideration having been made in the sate deed. are circetly against the petitioner herein and not against the purchasers of the property, Therefore. in any corisidered opinion, the petitioner earmot take advantage of the order of this Court passed in. Criminal Petition No.358/2005, wher sander the. proceedings have been quashed against accused Nos.Z - and 3. Yherelore the proceedmigs will "have te be continued against the petitioner-herein. | IS. Phe jearnes "Magistrate directed issue of summons to Che petitioner: OH 98.02.2005 in the first case and on 29.11.2004 in ihe second ease. Upon servicer of sumrons, (he petitioner has appeared belore the leamed. Magistrate avid has participated in the proceedings without any demur. lt is only in the year 2006 Le. ou \ 5.02.2006 these petitions have been filed seeking -quasting of the eriminal proceedings. = No doubt, io period ol limitation is provided for filing 7 criminal. | petition ander Section 482 9 Cr.P.C.
"Nevertheless. it cannot be said Cat the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked at Ms any time at the sweet wish and will of the party, if aceording to the petitioner. the proceedings ininated avainst him is iHegal and cannot be conta. Tt. should have sought quashing ef the proceedings. in exereise of power of this Court wnder "Section. 482. Cr.P.C, within a reasonable tine thereatier.. in taet the Orissa and Punjab and Tiaryana bigh Courts in the decisions noted above have ¢learly held that the application ruler: Section As2-Cr. PLC: has to be fled within a reassuable time vind period of GO days is a reasonable time fer file such application. This has been founel to. be reasonable in the Heht of period of imitation Of GO days 'ler filing te revision petition oauneder Section 8397 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the fact that "the. petifioner Herein kept quite nearly for one year AKQMA 2 theeckate alter services of summons ane has presented "these pciitions at a belated stage, these petitions suffer from-delay and laches. by te In view of the above discussions. | see no ground to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Adcordingiv.. the petitions are cismissed, co JT /-