Karnataka High Court
Sri Diwakara K vs State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1021 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI DIWAKARA K.,
S/O LATE MALLARI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.4189, VISHWA BHARATHI LAYOUT,
GIRINAGAR, 4TH PHASE,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BHANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KIRAN.S.JAVALI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE
BENGALURU - 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2 . INDRAMANI H.,
POLICE OFFICER,
VIGILANCE WING AND STF,
BDA HEAD OFFICE,
2
KUMARA PARK WEST,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.29/2022
REGISTERED BY THE SESHADRIPURAM POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 472, 420, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE XXXII A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.7 is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.29 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 472, 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore.
2. Heard Sri Kiran.S.Javali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government 3 Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent/BDA is the complainant. Accused No.1 is the owner of Sy.No.78 of Kommaghatta Village measuring 2 acres 34 guntas. Out of the said 2 acres 34 guntas, barring 4 guntas, 2 acres and 30 guntas of land was acquired through certain notifications issued by the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short). Accused No.5 one Hanumanthegowda is said to have approached accused No.1 Smt. Nagarathnamma contending that acquisition of land has taken place only insofar as it is pertaining to
4 guntas of land and there has been no acquisition for 2 acres and 30 guntas, seeks to buy the said land and pays an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. Smt. Nagarathnamma/accused No.1 later executes a General Power of Attorney ('GPA' for short) in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that later one Muniraju, accused No.6 was introduced by the petitioner who further introduced one Sri K.M.Uday who was willing to buy the property for a consideration. 4 Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 3 registered the property in favour of K.M.Uday. When things stood thus, the BDA appears to have issued a notice alleging that K.M. Uday had purchased the property on forged documents of the BDA and all of them put together have cheated the BDA and later the BDA registered the complaint against all the accused. The petitioner is also arrayed as accused No.7 for the afore-quoted offences. The moment registration of crime happens in Crime No.29 of 2022, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. This Court by an order dated 04-02-2022 had interdicted the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 by grant of an interim order. The same is subsisting even as on date.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Kiran.S.Javali appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has no role to play in any transaction between the other accused. The petitioner did hold a GPA from the hands of accused No.1 only for certain period which was revoked later and the sale takes place after the said revocation. The BDA is deliberately trying to implicate the petitioner notwithstanding any allegation substantiable against the petitioner. 5
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri Murugesh V.Charati appearing for the 2nd respondent/BDA would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is the petitioner who was the GPA holder of accused No.1 got other accused introduced to accused No.1 and sought to knock off the land of the BDA on such introduction. The petitioner being an Advocate had to be cautious in tendering his opinion or advice to accused No.1 with regard to sale of the property. Admittedly, an acquired property is sought to be sold. Therefore, there is fraud and cheating committed by all the accused. Merely because GPA had been revoked by accused No.1, the same would not absolve the petitioner of the allegation, as it is a matter of trial in which the petitioner has to come out clean along with other accused.
6. In reply, the learned senior counsel would take this Court through an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7518 of 2022 filed by accused No.1 wherein the subsequent purchaser one Mr. K.M. Uday was respondent No.4. This Court had partly allowed the writ petition and directed the BDA to consider the representation and pass necessary orders referring 6 the matter to the reference Court for necessary adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent therein. No compensation amount was directed to be disbursed. Therefore, it is a matter between accused No.1 in the case at hand and K.M.Uday in the said writ petition. He would contend that the matter which is purely civil in nature having a flavour of disbursement of compensation amount is sought to be given a colour of crime by registering the case particularly against the petitioner who had nothing to do with the property as on the date it was sold.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate is also not in dispute. The petitioner comes into the picture when accused No.1 executes a GPA on 03-12-2015 in favour of the present petitioner/accused No.7. The GPA describes the property to be measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas out of 2 acres and 34 guntas. The GPA was in force up to 19-09-2019. A deed of 7 revocation of GPA is made on 19-09-2019 whereby accused No.1, executant revoked the said GPA on the following reasons:
"DEED OF REVOCATION OF GENEREAL POWER OF ATTONEY DATED o3-12-2015.
THIS DEED OF REVOCATION OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IS MADE AND EXECUTED ON THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN (19-09-2019).
BE IT KNOWN TO ALL CONCERNED, I AM Smt. Nagarathna D/o late Naga Jois, aged about 66 years, residing at No.2341, 20thCross K.R.Road, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 070.
By a General Power of Attorney dated 3-12-2015, registered as document No.296/2015-16 in Book No.IV and stored in C.D.No..........in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Banashankari, Bangalore, I appointed Sri K.Diwakar S/o Sri Mallari Rao, Aged about 60 years, residing at No.M-4, Shalimar Plaza, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003, as our true and lawful attorneys for me, in my name and on my behalf to do execute and perform all acts, deeds and things therein recited in respect of the schedule property.
WHEREAS it has become necessary and/or expedient to revoke the said power for which the said attorney Sri K.Diwakar S/o Sri Mallari Rao, Aged about 60 years, residing at No.M-4, Shalimar Plaza, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003, which has been registered as Document No.296/2015-16 dated 3- 12-2015 to revoke the said GPA.
KNOW YE ALL that by this deed, I cancel the said General Power of Attorney and I absolutely and completely revoke all powers or authority thereby and there under given to him either expressly or impliedly to all int4ents and purpose.
The said Sri K.Diwakar S/o Sri Mallari Rao, Aged about 60 years, residing at No.M-4, Shalimar Plaza, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003 has confirmed that during the existence of General Power of Attorney, he has not done any acts 8 which are detrimental to the executants and also to the schedule property any time till now and in case of any claims arising therefrom, he alone will answer such claims and demands and he provides indemnity in respect thereto."
Except quoting that it has become expedient to revoke the said GPA made in favour of the petitioner, no other reason is indicated in the deed of revocation. It was a plain and simple deed of revocation of GPA. The dispute appears to have arisen after the revocation of the GPA in favour of the petitioner. The BDA then comes to know that a sale deed is executed by accused No.1 in favour of K.M. Uday by submitting forged documents and, therefore, seeks to register a crime by registering a complaint on 29-01-2022. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, the same is extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:
".... .... ....
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, zÀÆgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ©rJ gÀªÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ C©üªÈÀ ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ £ÁqÀ¥Àæ¨ÀÄs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤ªÀiÁðtzÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.:78PÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ C¢ü¸ÀÆavÀ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw J¸ï.£ÁUÀgÀvÀß ©£ï £ÁUÀ eÉÆìĸï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78 gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ, ¸ÀvÁåA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆÃUÀ¸ï »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀAa¹, G¥À £ÉÆÃAzÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ (PÉAUÉÃj) PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÝ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30/09/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 0-04 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÉ M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀzÀ ¥Àæw ºÁUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ºÁUÀÆ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZïUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 9 ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï £ÀA.89153 gÀ ªÀÄÆ® PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPï, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78gÀ 9 JPÀgÉ 27 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 3-00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ "£ÁqÀ¥Àæ¨ÀÄs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ" UÉ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ C¢ü¸ÆÀ ZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:
¨ÉAC¥Áæ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/GD(¨sÀƸÁé)/C¨sÀƸÁéC/158/2008-09 ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/05/2008 gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (ªÀÄÆ® PÀqÀvÀzÀ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀA:000001). £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ® J¯ï.J.¹ PÀqÀvÀzÀ ¥ÀÄl 000220 gÀ°è£À CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19/01/2010 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqɹzÀ ¸ÀªÉð£À°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPï, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78 gÀ 9 JPÀgÉ 27 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw £ÁUÀgÀvÀß gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ PÉÊ©nÖzÄÀ Ý, G½zÀ 2-29 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà PÉ.JA.±ÀAPÀgï gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 0-06 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZï£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (ªÀÄÆ® PÀqÀvÀzÀ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀA:000220).
ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÆ® J¯ï.J.¹ PÀqÀvÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁÌöå¤AUï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï £ÀA§gï 89153 gÀ°è£À zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄļÀî »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀļÀÄîªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄļÀî ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁÌöå¤AUï DUÀ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®¨sÀå«®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPï, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78gÀ ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw.J£ï.£ÁUÀgÀvÀß, vÀAzÉ ²æÃ.£ÁUÀeÉÆìĸï, ¥Àw: ¯ÉÃmï ²æÃ.ºÉZï.J£ï.£ÁUÀgÁd, 73 ªÀµÀð, £ÀA.2341, 20£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, PÉ.Dgï.gÀ¸ÉÛ, §£À±ÀAPÀj 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 070. ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9663008477 gÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è vÀ£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPï, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78gÀ ¥ÉÊQ 2-34 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÄÀ ß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ºÁUÀÆ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝzÀÄ w½¢zÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀÄ£À« ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÁUÀÆå ©©JA¦ ªÀiÁf PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉÃlgï DzÀ ²æÃ.J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ £À£Àß d«ÄãÀÄ PÉêÀ® 0-04 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, G½zÀ 2-30 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹, vÁ£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹, ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ 1 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, £À£Àß ¸ÀéwÛ£À zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ²æÃ.J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀgÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß d«ÄãÀÄ PÉîªÀ 0-04 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, G½zÀ 2-30 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZï ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹, ©rJ £À°è vÁªÉà NqÁr F PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£Á¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ, £À£Àß ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æà PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï gÀªÀjUÉ f¦J £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÄÀ Ý, ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀéwÛ£À RjâzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ £À£Àß ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀjUÉ vÁ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£ßÀ 10 ªÀÄUÀ ²æÃ.±À²ÃAzÀæ £ÁUÀgÁeï, ¸ÉÆ¸É ²æêÀÄw ªÁt ±À²ÃAzÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ ²æÃ.gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ±À²ÃAzÀæ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30/09/2020 gÀAzÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj, G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀA:KEN-1-03586-2020-21 CDNo.KEND1139 jÃvÁå £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4 PÉÆÃn 21 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àr¢gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÉêÀ® 0-04 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, G½zÀ 2-30 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZï ¥ÀæwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀļÁîVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀĨsÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, G½zÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 29 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀPÌÉ M¼À¥Àr¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉA§ ¸ÀvÁåA±À FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ w½zÀħA¢zÀÄ, £À£Àß ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹jgÀĪÀ ²æà PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£ÉUÉƼÀUÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F PÀÈvÀåPÌÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ½UÀÆ ²æà J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉà UËqÀ, ²æà ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æà PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî »A§gÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZïUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢UÀ¼Éà PÁgÀt PÀvÀðgÉAzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÁåA±ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß CjAiÀÄzÉà £À£Àß ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ EzÀÝ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä°è w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ." JAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÆ À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw.£ÁUÀgÀvÀߪÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ²æÃ.±À²ÃAzÀæ £ÁUÀgÁeï ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉƸÉAiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃ.ªÁt ±À²ÃAzÀæ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ CA±ÀUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ £ÁqÀ¥æ¨ À ÄÀs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤ªÀiÁðtPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPï, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78gÀ 9 JPÀgÉ 27 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw.£ÁUÀgÀvÀß gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 0-05 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ PÉÊ©lÄÖ, G½zÀ 02 JPÀgÉ 29 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà PÉ.JA.±ÀAPÀgï gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 0-06 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ 2 JPÀgÉ 35 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78 gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆÃUÀ¸ï »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, G¥À £ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ (PÉAUÉÃj) PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀjUÉ ±ÀÄzÀÝ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ 4 PÉÆÃn 21 ®PÀë gÀÆ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw.£ÁUÀgÀvßÀ ªÀÄä, ²æÃ.±À²ÃAzÀæ £ÁUÀgÁeï, ²æêÀÄw.ªÁt ±À²ÃAzÀæ, ²æÃ.gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ±À²ÃAzÀæ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀAZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ±Á«ÄïÁVgÀĪÀ ²æÃ.J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉà UËqÀ, ²æÃ.ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æ.PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A:465, 468, 471, 472, 420 eÉÆvÉ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,"
A perusal at the complaint, as afore-quoted, would indicate that the allegation against the petitioner is that at the time when the GPA 11 was in force, the petitioner had introduced one Sri Muniraju, accused No.6 to accused No.1 and accused No.6 had introduced K.M.Uday to accused No.1 who takes the documents from the hands of accused No.1 on an assurance that he would buy the property measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas. The further allegation is that the purchaser of the property Sri. K.M.Uday had been deceived by one Hanumanthegowda/accused No.5, Sri Muniraju/accused No.6 and the petitioner, accused No.7. The allegation against them is that they had produced a false endorsement and a sketch for the purpose of selling the property to Mr. K.M. Uday. Therefore, the allegation is that accused Nos. 5 and 6 have produced a false endorsement and a sketch depicting that the property had not been acquired by the BDA and had got the sale deed registered.
9. A perusal at the original records would clearly indicate no role of the petitioner in the entire episode of alleged fraud. Accused No.1 gives her statement before the BDA on 16-08-2021, certain excerpts of which become necessary to be noticed on the role of the petitioner and they read as follows:
12
".... .... ....
FVgÀĪÁUÉÎ 2011 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ²æÃ.J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀ, ©©JA¦ ªÀiÁf PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉÃlgï gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ £À£Àß d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ PÉêÀ® 04 UÀÄAmÉ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¨ÁQ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ Rjâ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ J®è ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ 1,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¤Ãr £À£Àß ¸ÀéwÛ£À J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ©rJUÉ MAzÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. EzÁzÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß 2 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¥ÉÊQ PÉêÀ® 4 UÀÄAmÉ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁVzÉ G½zÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À ¥ÀæQæAiÉĬÄAzÀ PÉÊ©qÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ©.r.J »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð ¸ÉÌZï ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ, EzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è NqÁr PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. F »A§gÀºÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ½UÁV £Á£ÀÄ Dgï.n.L £À°è Cfð ¸À°è¹zÉÝ£ÄÀ . ²æÃ.J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÀåªÀºÀj¸À®Ä f.¦.J ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ MvÁ۬ĸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉUÀ¼À°è ºÁUÀÆ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£ÀUÀ½zÀÝ PÁgÀt, ©.r.J/¸ÀªÉð/gÉ«£ÀÆå E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼À°è NqÁqÀ®Ä DUÀzÉÃ, ªÀÈzÁÝ¥ÀåzÀ PÁgÀt £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä ²æÃ.PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï, ªÀQîgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:03/12/2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁgÁlªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ G½zÀ J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä f.¦.J ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ²æÃ.J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £À£Àß C£ÀĨsÀªÀ«zÀÝ d«Ää£À°è PWD E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA©üPÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÀߪÉà ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À°è gÀ¸ÉÛ ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ LwÃ¥ÀÄð gÀa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉ»rAiÀÄĪÀ §UÉÎ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛVzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ, F §UÉÎ £À¤ßAzÀ f¦J ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝ PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï, ªÀQîjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj vÀPÀgÁjUÉ ¥ÀævÀÄåvÀÛgÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/12/2018 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ Vj£ÀUÀgÀ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà gÀªÉÄñÀ ¨Á§Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀĨsÀ gÀªÉÄñÀ ¨Á§Ä gÀªÀjUÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁjzÉÝ J£ÀÄߪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä d«Ää£À ¸ÀªÉð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀªÉð E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ 11 (¹) £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. EzÀÄ ²æà J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄvÀAvÀæªÉAzÀÄ w½¢zÀÝjAzÀ, F PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æÃ.¢ªÁPÀgï PÉ.gÀªÀgÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2019£Éà ¸Á°£À°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §A¢zÀÝ ²æÃ.ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ PÉÊ©nÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV, AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ°è ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉUÉ Rjâ¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, £À£Àß d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ £ÀA©zÀÝjAzÀ, CªÀgÀ ¸À®ºÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¦àgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £À£ßÀ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ßÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉUÉ Rjâ¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß F §UÉÎ ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹, ªÀåªÀºÀj¸À®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
13
CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19/09/2020 gÀAzÀÄ G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, PÉAUÉÃjAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgï gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝ J¯Áè f.¦.J C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß 4£Éà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå:00169/2019-20 ¹r £ÀA: KEND 894 jÃvÁå £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ f¦J gÀzÀÄÝ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉƽ¹, ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀjUÉ f.¦.J C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
CzÉà ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19/09/2020 gÀAzÀÄ G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, PÉAUÉÃjAiÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå: 5857/2019-20 ¹r £ÀA.: KEND 894 jÃvÁå £À£Àß ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀjUÉ gÀÆ.4,21,00,000/-(£Á®ÄÌ PÉÆÃn E¥ÀàvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M¦à £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F ¥ÉÊQ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19/09/2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ.1,00,00,000 (MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃn) ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß rr £ÀA§gï 067007 ¢:18/09/2019 gÀ°è gÀÆ.1,00,00,000 (MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃn) ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß rr £ÀA§gï 067008 ¢:18/09/2019 gÀ°è gÀÆ.1,00,00,000 (MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃn) ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß rr £ÀA§gï 067009 ¢:18/09/2019 gÀ°è gÀÆ.90,00,000 (vÉÆA§vÀÄÛ ®PÀë) ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß rr £ÀA§gï 067010 ¢:18/09/2019 gÀ°è gÀÆ.10,00,000 (ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë) ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß rr £ÀA§gï 067011 ¢:18/09/2019 gÀ°è ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ gÀÆ41,00,00,000 (£Á®ÄÌ PÉÆÃn) ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. G½zÀ 21 ®PÀë ºÀtzÀ ¥ÉÊQ gÀÆ.17,84,250/- (ºÀ¢£ÉüÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ JA¨sÀvÁß®ÄÌ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E£ÀÆßgÀ LªÀvÀÄÛ gÀÆ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß rr £ÀA.067027 ¢:29.09.2020 UÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨ÁåAPï ¤AzÀ qÁæ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ rrUÀ¼À gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G½zÀ 3,15,750/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß nrJ¸ï gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è PÀnÖ ZÀ®£ï vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀQîgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.¢ªÁPÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ²æÃ.£À¨Ámïð ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àeï gÀªÀjAzÀ Rjâ¹zÀÝ ªÀÄÆ® PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ zÁR¯É, Dgï.n.¹, SÁvÁ ¥ÀvæÀ, ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀjAzÀ ¤ÃrzÀÝ »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉÌZï UÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï gÀªÀjUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
Accused No.1 tenders her statement that on 03-12-2015 she had entrusted all the works with regard to her property except the sale of the property to the petitioner. It is her further statement that the petitioner had in fact objected to any survey sketch being taken by Sri Hanumanthegowda and also speaks about the revocation of the GPA on 19-09-2020. She further speaks of agreement of sale of the property in favour of Sri K.M.Uday. Later she speaks of a sale deed executed in favour of Sri K.M. Uday on 30-09-2020 before the 14 jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. While doing so, accused No.1 states that all the documents she had taken back from the petitioner- K.Diwakar/accused No.7 and handed over to K.M.Uday, the purchaser of the property.
10. If the complaint is juxtaposed and read in tandem with the statement tendered by accused No.1 who claims to be the owner of the property, it would clearly indicate no role of the petitioner in securing the endorsement from the BDA or a sketch from the BDA to be placed before the Sub-Registrar at the time of sale of the property between accused No.1 and Mr. K.M. Uday. The endorsement that the complaint alleges is dated 30-09-2014 and reads as follows:
"ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð£ÀA.78 gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ «¹ÛÃtð 9 JPÀgÉ 27 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäzÀÄÝ, F ¥ÉÊQ 2 JPÀgÉ 35 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÁqÀ¥Àæ¨ÀÄs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ gÀZÀ£ÉUÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.02.2010 gÀAzÀÄ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:AiÀÄÄrr 51 JAJ£ïJPïì 2010 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw £ÁUÀgÀvÀß gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 0-04 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÉ M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¨sÀƪÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀëAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æêÀÄw £ÁUÀgÀvÀß gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ºÁUÀÆ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É £ÀPÉë ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."15
The GPA was executed by accused No.1 in favour the petitioner on 03-12-2015. The endorsement was communicated to accused No.1 herself. Therefore, there could be no role of the petitioner in securing any endorsement and handing it over to accused No.1 for execution of sale deed. If this is a fraudulent document or forged document, it is for accused No.1, accused No.5 or accused No.6 to defend themselves, as the petitioner was not in the picture when the endorsement was issued and was not in the picture when the sale took place between accused No.1 and Sri K.M.Uday. It is the complaint of Mr. K.M. Uday dated 30-06-2021 which triggered the entire in-house investigation by the BDA. The complaint reads as follows:
gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 020.
EAzÀ, PÉ.JA.GzÀAiÀiï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ªÀiÁzÀAiÀÄå, 47 ªÀµÀð ªÁ¸À £ÀA.4/204, «±Á¯ï ¥Áå¯Éøï, 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ªÀįÉèñÀégÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560003.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ©.r.J ¤AzÀ £ÁqÀ¥Àæ¨ÀÄs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¨sÀƸÁé¢ü£À¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÝ ²æêÀÄw J£ï.£ÁUÀgÀvÀß ©£ï £ÁUÀ eÉÆìĸï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆavÀ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁVzÀÝ PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð 16 £ÀA.78 gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀvÁåA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄļÀî ¨ÉÆÃUÀ¸ï »A§gÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢ ªÀUÀð ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ±Á«ÄïÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄzsÀåªÀwðUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
**** ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78/2 (ºÀ¼É ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78) gÀ°è£À 2 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw J£ï.£ÁUÀgÀvÀß ©£ï £ÁUÀ eÉÆìĸï, PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï ºÉZï.J£ï.£ÁUÀgÁeï, 71 ªÀµÀð JA§ÄªÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä J.JA.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ªÀÄĤ«ÃgÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÀå¹ÜPÉAiÀÄ°è 2019£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 4 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ©.r.J £ÁqÀ¥Àæ¨ÀÄs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ, G½zÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ÄzÀ£ÄÀ ß RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV, ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-09-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ©.r.J ¤AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £ÁqÀ¥Àæ¨ÀÄs PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ PÉƪÀÄäWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.78gÀ°è ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ £ÀPÉëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²æêÀÄw £ÁUÀgÀvÀß gÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß SÁwæ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤zsÀðj¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-09-2019gÀAzÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ, ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©.r.J ¤AzÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀPÉëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀjUÉ ¤Ãr CªÀjAzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ²æêÀÄw £ÁUÀgÀvÀßgÀªÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30-09-2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ (PÉAUÉÃj) »jAiÀÄ G¥À £ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå:KEN-1-03586-2020- 21, ¹.r.£ÀA§gï KEND1139 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ°è ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ±ÀÄzÀÞPÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå 03 gÀ°è£À PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå.ºÉZï gÀ°è ©.r.J ¤AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀ (J£ï.M.¹) ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©.r.J ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ 4 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ £Á£Éà ©.r.J ¤AzÀ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ zÁR°¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÁ° £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ ©.r.J UÉ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁVzÀÝ 4 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ©.r.J UÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ Rjâ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 5 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ G½zÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 29 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ©.r.J ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ©.r.J zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 29 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀÆvÁð ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄäUÉ CªÁqïð gÀa¹ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁV, CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀzÁ¸ÉUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄ 17 ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁVgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa, d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄļÀî zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ, ©.r.J ¤AzÀ ¨ÉÆÃUÀ¸ï »A§gÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÉëUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤Ãr ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«Ää£À RjâzÁgÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ©.r.J UÉ ªÀAa¹gÀĪÀ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ EvÀgÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ , ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ±Á«ÄïÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄzsÀåªÀwðUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß §½¬ÄgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw J£ï.£ÁUÀgÀvÀß ©£ï £ÁUÀeÉÆìĸï gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ©.r.J ¤AzÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÆÃUÀ¸ï »A§gÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÉëUÀ¼À C¸À®Ä ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ d«Ää£À PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ Dgï.n.¹ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï jf¸ÀÖgï ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ." The complaint of Sri K.M. Uday to the BDA does not refer to any act of the petitioner. As a matter of fact it does not refer the name of the petitioner much less any act on the part of the petitioner. It is later the BDA has roped in the petitioner as accused No.7.
11. If the afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events, are noticed, it is a case where the petitioner is dragged as an accused in Crime No.29 of 2022 without there being any realm or reason, as the complaint simply narrates all those who have forged the documents of the property. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner had nothing to do with both the acts that are alleged i.e., the forged sketch or the forged endorsement. The allegation should be answered by all the other accused as there are statements made 18 concerning the acts of other accused in the entire episode of alleged crime.
12. The further contention is that of an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7518 of 2022 with regard to the dispute between accused No.1 and Mr. K.M.Uday. The dispute appears to be for payment of compensation either to accused No.1/Nagarathnamma or Sri K.M. Uday. Accused no.1 had approached this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. "Call for the records from the respondent b. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction to the respondent No.2 and 3 to take all necessary steps to stop passing of award and releasing of compensation to the 4th respondent.
c. Issue writ or direction or writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to consider the representations at Annexure-Q dated 22.03.2022 and Annexure-R dated 22.03.2022;
d. Grant such other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
In the said writ petition, the petitioner had claimed that she is the owner of 2 acres and 34 guntas of land and speaks of an agreement of sale executed on 19-09-2019. The Court also notices that there 19 are several disputes between accused No.1 and the purchaser.
Therefore, the Court had directed the matter to be placed before the reference Court for passing necessary orders and further directed that compensation should not be disbursed till the resolution of the dispute. The order so passed reads as follows:
".... .... ....
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.78/2 (Old Sy.No.78) measuring about 2 acres 34 guntas, situated at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The respondent No.2-BDA issued a notification to acquire the said land on 18.02.2010 for the formation of a residential layout known as 'Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout'. The petitioner is stated to have given her consent to the acquisition in respect of vacant land leaving out the residential house etc., as per letter dated 20.09.2010 and affidavit dated 17.09.2010. The petitioner thereafter has executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 03.12.2015 and GPA holder has also submitted a representation dated 24.07.2018 for passing of an award and/or to give an alternate developed sites.
3. The respondent No.4 at that stage is stated to have approached the petitioner for purchasing the property and got registered the agreement of sale executed on 19.09.2019. Thereafter, there being several disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, in this background, the petitioner apprehending that the respondent No.4 will try to knock of the compensation amount, had given a representation to the respondent No.2 requesting the respondent No.2 not to pass any award in respect of the petitioner's land in favour of the respondent No.4. Apprehending that the 20 respondent No.2 would pass an award in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Smt.Lakshmi Iyengar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the dispute as regards the entitlement of compensation is required to be determined. Instead of doing so, respondent No.2 is likely to pass an award and disburse the compensation amount in favour of respondent No.4. As such, the representation submitted by the petitioner would be required to be considered before any award is passed.
5. Sri.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the representation is in the process of consideration.
Given four weeks' time, necessary orders would be passed on the said representation, referring the matter to the Reference Court, since there is a dispute as regards the entitlement of compensation between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and further that until such dispute is resolved by the Reference Court no disbursal of the compensation would be made though an award would be passed. The submission of Sri.Jeevan J.Neeralgi answers the grievance and apprehension on part of the petitioner and as such, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation at Annexure-Q dated 22.03.2022 and Annexure-R dated 22.03.2022 and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order referring the matter to the Reference Court for necessary adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4.21
iii. Respondents No.2 and 3 are restrained from disbursing any compensation amount to either the petitioner or respondent No.4 until the said resolution of the dispute.
iv. Respondent No.3 shall act on a print out of the webhosted copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy. In the event of any clarification being required, respondent No.3 is at liberty to obtain the same from Sri. Jeevan J.Neeralgi, who has entered appearance for respondents No.2 and 3 and/or by visiting the website of this Court."
Therefore, it is a dispute between accused No.1 and Sri. K.M. Uday concerning receipt of compensation amount which is now pending before the civil Court. If the BDA is aggrieved of certain acts of other accused, it may very well proceed against them. Finding no allegations against the petitioner, even if the complaint is taken as true, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.
13. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1 in the circumstances becomes apposite. In the said judgment the Apex Court holds as follows:
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 22 "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 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 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.23
(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.
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court at clause 1 clearly holds that on a perusal of the complaint, if it would not make out any offence as alleged, the Court has to step in and quash such proceedings. The allegation in the case at hand is invoking of Sections 465, 468, 471, 472 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner cannot be seen to be alleged of committing forgery as he is nowhere in the picture and even cheating would not arise against him as the GPA had been revoked. Even if the GPA was in existence, it would not make out the ingredients of cheating as obtaining under Section 415 of the IPC, as the petitioner can neither be alleged of inducing or luring accused No.1 to part with the property.
14. In a dispute with regard to compensation amount between accused no.1 and the purchaser and the allegation of 24 forgery against other accused, it would not mean that further proceedings or investigation against the petitioner should be permitted to be continued and if permitted, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR in Crime No.29 of 2022 registered by the Sheshadripuram Police and pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.7.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order is only concerning accused No.7/ petitioner qua under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The observations made or the order would not influence or bind the investigation against other accused or any proceeding pending before any judicial fora concerning the subject matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp/CT:MJ