Karnataka High Court
Govindappa vs The State By on 16 November, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4831 OF 2018
BETWEEN
GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAGALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE,
SOOLIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 074. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI ANJANA GOWDA., ADVOCATE]
AND
1. THE STATE BY
KUMBALAGODU POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560 040
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
BANGALORE-01.
2. SRI JAGADISH UPPIN,
S/O SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2260, 4TH CROSS ROAD,
1ST A MAIN ROAD,
2ND PHASE, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
DATED 27.09.2014 IN C.C.NO.520/2015 IN RESPECT OF
THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.4) FOR THE OFFENCES
U/S 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT/KUMBALUGUDU POLICE STATION ON THE
FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.520/2015 pending before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri. Anjana Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner are members of a family, who get certain properties by way of a registered partition deed registered on 07.03.2007. The share of the petitioner is 3 acres and 30 guntas in Sy.No.46 of Kenchanpura village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
4. A private complaint is registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 by the complainant narrating circumstances as to how accused Nos.1 to 3 have hoodwinked or cheated the complainant in entering into an agreement to sell and later entering into another agreement to sale and finally selling a property to a third party. The narration in the complaint is with regard to agreement of sell of Sy.No.61/1, which measures 1 acre 30 guntas. Sy.No.61/1 in terms of the partition deed had fallen to the share of accused Nos.1 4 to 3. Therefore, the complainant, who enters into an agreement to sell was concerning the land measuring 1 acre, 30 guntas in Sy.No.61/1. Neither the name of the petitioner nor Sy.No.46, which measures 3 acres 30 guntas did figure in the complaint registered. The private complaint results in registration of an FIR against accused Nos.1 to 3, again not against the petitioner. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4, after investigation, when the police filed final report/charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The column No.17 of the charge sheet reads as follows:
"PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À ¢£ÁAPÀ:15/04/2011 gÀAzÀÄ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀ PÀÄA§¼ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½ PÉAZÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:61gÀ°è£À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ CAPÀt-12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ J1, J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-01gÀªÀjUÉ 1 PÉÆÃn 18 ®PÀëÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ
5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.UÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ±ÀÄzÀÝ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ 5 PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß 50 ®PÀë gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß CqÁé£ïì DV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ G½PÉ ºÀtªÁzÀ 68 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß 7 wAUÀ¼À ªÁ¬ÄzÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ jf¸ÉÖçõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÁV PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉ ªÀiÁa ºÀt UÀ½PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ EzÉà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀ£À°è£À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-02 gÀªÀjUÉ J1, J2, J3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1 PÉÆÃn 18 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár 20 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-02 gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ 6 wAUÀ¼À ªÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ G½zÀ 98 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß jf¸ÉéçõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÁV PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQë-01 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 02 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¸ÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.61 gÀ°è£À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ºÀt UÀ½PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ J1, J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-03 gÀªÀjAzÀ 70 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ±ÀÄzÀÝ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß jf¸ÉÖçõÀ£ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ J1 ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁd J2 C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀÄ J3 zÉÆqÀØ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀÌ (ªÀÄÈvÀ), J4 UÉÆëAzÀ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A: 6
406, 420 L¦¹ eÉÆvÉUÉ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå ºÉÆÃj¸À®àlÖ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ¥ÀnÖ."
(emphasis added)
5. Even in the charge sheet, a passing reference is made to accused No.4 based upon the statements given by the complainant. The statement of the complainant reads as follows:
"¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄgÀĺÉýPÉ:
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÀVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¢:15/04/2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½ PÉAZÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ zÉÆqÀغÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀÌ ºÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁdÄ C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ PÉAZÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:61 gÀ°è£À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß 1 PÉÆÃn 18 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár 50 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ZÉPï ªÀÄÄSÁAgÀ CqÁé£ïì DV ¤Ãr G½zÀ ¨ÁQ ºÀt 68 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß 7 wAUÀ¼À ªÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢Ã¥Àr¹ £ÉÆAzÀt ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆlÄÖ jf¸ÉÖçõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV M¦à ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉ×Ã, £À£ÀUÉ w½AiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ 3 d£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÆëAzÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÝ 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ 7 d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ PÉ.J£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÉÃUËqÀgÀªÀjUÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß 1 PÉÆÃn 18 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr CªÀjAzÀ 20 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ZÉPï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ CqÁé£ïì DV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ 6 wAUÀ¼À ªÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ G½zÀ ¨ÁQ ºÀtªÁzÀ 98 ®PÀëzÀ 12 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 5 £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß jf¸ÉéçõÀ£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ J£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÉÃUËqÀgÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ w½¸ÀzÀAvÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï £À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉZï JJ¯ï 3 £Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw ®vÁ ¥Àæ¨sÁvï CA«Äì JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ ¢:31/07/2013 gÀAzÀÄ 70 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr PÉAUÉÃjAiÀÄ G¥À £ÉÆAzÁt¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆAzÁªÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¹eÉJA £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ¸ÀV zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀÄA§¼ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¢:27/09/2014 gÀAzÀÄ PÀÄA§¼ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉÆ. £ÀA:309/2014 PÀ®A:406, 420 eÉÆvÉUÉ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå PÉøÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛ.
ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁdÄ, C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀÄ, zÉÆqÀØ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÆëAzÀ¥Àà 4 d£ÀgÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÝ PÉAZÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:61 gÀ°è£À 1 JPÀgÉ, 30 UÀÄAmÉ 8 d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÁ¹ PÉ, J£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÉUËqÀgÀªÀjUÉ £À£ÀUÉ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½AiÀÄzÀAvÉ ºÀt UÀ½PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa £À£ÀUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ J£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÉUËqÀgÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ w½¸ÀzÀAvÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï £À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉZï JJ¯ï 3 £Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw ®vÁ ¥Àæ¨Ás vï CA«Äì JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ ¢: 31/07/2013gÀAzÀÄ 70 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁgÁqÀ ªÀiÁr PÉAUÉÃjAiÀÄ G¥À £ÉÆAzÁt¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆAzÁªÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¹eÉJA £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ¸ÀV zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀÄA§¼ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¢:27/09/2014 gÀAzÀÄ PÀÄA§¼ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉÆ, £ÀA:309/2014 PÀ®A:406, 420 eÉÆvÉUÉ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå PÉøÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛ.
£ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt UÀ½PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ HAL 3£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ ¨sÀqÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ²ÛêÀÄw ®vÁ ¥Àæ¨sÁvï DA«ÄìgÀªÀjAzÀ 70 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj G¥À£ÉÆAzÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ 4 9 d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ 1 PÉÆÃn 18 ®PÀëzÀ 5£ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr.
£À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è EvÀgÉà PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ eÁ¹Û EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉAZÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:61 gÀ°è£À 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ G¸ÀÄÛªÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«Ää£À §UÉÎ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀjà PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÁ¹ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA:600, 8 £Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, 4 £Éà © PÁæ¸ï £À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¯ÉÃmï ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄt¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 43 ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì¼Àî « gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï £À d«Ää£À PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß (f ¦ J) ªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
UÉÆëAzÀ¥Àà£À avÁªÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀĪÀÄäQ̤AzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁdÄ, C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÆqÀغÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀÌgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ, J£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÉÃUËqÀgÀªÀjUÉ ºÀt UÀ½PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 61 gÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ 10 d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ²ÃªÀÄw ®vÁ ¥Àæ¨Ávï DA«ÄìgÀªÀjUÉ jf¸ÉÖçõÀ£ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ: N¢¹ PÉýzÉ ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ."
6. Even in the statement given by the complainant, what is narrated is accused Nos.1 to 3 and 4 have joined together and entered into an agreement to sell and have cheated the complainant. Therefore, the agreement to sell becomes necessary to be considered.
7. A perusal at the agreement to sell would clearly indicate that it is an agreement entered into between the complainant, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3.
8. The schedule in the agreement is Sy.No.61 measuring 1 acre, 30 guntas. Therefore, the agreement to sell, which the complainant himself narrates in the statement is not concerning Sy.No.46, which belongs to the petitioner. The complaint is also with regard to Sy.No.61/1 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. If the 11 petitioner is not a party to any of the transaction between accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant, on the vague statement of the complainant, the petitioner could not have been arrayed as accused No.4 in the transaction, unless there was material available. As the material that is placed before this Court would clearly indicate that the petitioner is not a party to any of the transaction that the complainant complains off in the subject complaint.
9. If it is the case of the complainant that the accused have entered into multiple agreements and have sold it to someone else, it is for accused Nos.1 to 3 to defend themselves in those proceedings.
10. Since the FIR does not name the petitioner, the charge sheet names the petitioner only on the vague statements made by the complainant without there being any material on record with regard to the petitioner being a party to the agreement to sell, if the 12 trial is permitted to continue against the petitioner, it would undoubtedly be an abuse of the process of law.
11. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, unless the ingredients of Sections 405 and 415 of IPC are linked to the offences, the trial cannot be permitted to continue. The allegation do not disclose any such link to the events afore-stated. The documents produced before this Court are unimpeachable and are in favour of the petitioner.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.520/2015 pending before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, stands quashed only insofar as it concerns the petitioner.13
iii. The observations made in the course of this order is only concerning accused No.4, the petitioner and not with regard to any other accused in the criminal trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG