Karnataka High Court
Sri P Ramamurthy vs State By Bharathi Nagar Police Station on 2 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26944
CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9188 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI P RAMAMURTHY
S/O LATE PARAMASHIVAM
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
C/O MEDIC STAR HOSPITAL
NO.17/1, MUDALIAR,
ARUNACHALAM ROAD OFF,
SEPPINGS ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHU E.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY BHARATHI NAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BHARATHI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
Digitally PULAKESHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
signed by
SUMA BANGALORE CITY.
Location: REP. BY ITS SSP
HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDING,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.
2. SRI. S.K. GUHA ROY
S/O LATE SUBIYAL KANTI GUHARAY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.125, 1ST CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA,
SULTHAN PALYA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR. K.K., HCGP FOR R1-STATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26944
CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.18702/2017 ON THE FILE OF IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 403, 406, 407 R/W 34(b)
OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.18702/2017 pending trial before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 306, 407 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Respondent No.2, now deceased, had filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner had invited prospective clients to take over a hospital on long lease as he was unable to run it. Respondent No.2 started visiting the hospital and was attending patients in the out patient department from March, 2014 onwards between 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. He claimed that he was occupying room No.13 in the first floor and casualty in the ground floor. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:26944 CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018 Respondent No.2 claimed that in a short span of time, he developed a good practice and substantial revenue was generated. He alleged that accused No.2 was a receptionist at the same hospital. Further, he alleged that during April, 2014, a person named Mr. Ashok Babu showed keen interest to take over the hospital and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.
3. Respondent No.2 claimed that since the hospital was not in a good shape as the fixtures and furnitures were worn out, he installed blinders at a cost of Rs.15,000/-. He also appointed the services of physicians at the hospital. Respondent No.2 alleged that Mr. Ashok Babu paid Rs.10 lakhs to accused No.1 and a formal Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between accused No.1 and Mr. Ashok Babu. Later, during September, 2014, Mr. Ashok Babu back tracked from the lease and without the knowledge of respondent No.2, the lease was cancelled and the services of respondent No.2 were terminated. Respondent No.2, who allegedly was -4- NC: 2023:KHC:26944 CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018 humiliated at the hands of the accused, filed a complaint before Bharathinagar Police Station, who filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.50011/2015. He also filed a suit in O.S.No.9527/2014 for declaration and restoration of the possession of the consultation rooms in which he was consulting. He also filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,000/- incurred by him for installing blinders and to return his belongings. Respondent No.2 alleged that the accused refused to hand over his belongings and thus, they had committed the offences punishable under Section 407 and 403 IPC. The private complaint was referred to jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police, after recording the statement of witnesses, filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.18702/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 407 and 406 IPC. The witnesses cited in the charge sheet had no personal knowledge about the transaction of the accused as well as the complainant- respondent No.2.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:26944 CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018
4. It is now stated that respondent No.2 has expired and his legal representatives are not traceable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 submits that the private complaint clearly indicates that it is a civil dispute between respondent No.2 and accused No.1. He submits that respondent No.2 having lost a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,000/- and thereafter, having failed to obtain any orders of interim injunction in the civil suit has thought it fit to file a false private complaint. He submits that even if the entire complaint is taken at its face value, the offence u/s. 403 and 406 IPC is not made out. He submits that the suit filed by respondent No.2 before the Small Cause Court is dismissed. Hence, there is no offence made out against the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the jurisdictional police after investigating the complaint, have filed a charge sheet and therefore, it is inappropriate to quash the same. He submits that CW.4 was a witness -6- NC: 2023:KHC:26944 CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018 who recorded the statement stating that the complainant- respondent No.2 was running the hospital efficiently and therefore, there is some material to show accused No.1- petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 407 IPC.
7. The fact that the service of respondent No.2 was availed by accused No.1 and Mr. Ashok Babu even if admitted, does not give cause of action for respondent No.2 to claim that he had any interest in running/affairs of the hospital. He also could not claim that the termination of the lease agreement between accused No.1 and Mr. Ashok Babu resulted in any offence under Section 407 IPC. The fact that respondent No.2 had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which was dismissed, probabalizes that the case of respondent No.2 was without any basis. In that view of the matter, since the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 arises out of a contract entered into between accused No.2 and Mr. Ashok Babu, the invocation of criminal process is unwarranted. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:26944 CRL.P No. 9188 of 2018
8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.18702/2017 on the file of the IV ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC