Karnataka High Court
M/S. Embassy Group Of Company vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. EMBASSY GROUP OF COMPANY
NO.150, EMBASSY POINT,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
B.S. NARAYANAN,
S/O. LATE SUNDARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. C. KRISHNAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. C. MUKUNDARAJAN,
R/AT NO.65/1, DYNASTY LAYOUT,
NEAR KENSRI SCHOOL,
MARIYANNAPALAYA,
Digitally signed by H.A. FARM POST,
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 024.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. B. S. NARAYANAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUNDARARAJAN,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.150, EMBASSY POINT,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017
4. V. S. ARAVINDAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. SINGARACHARY,
R/AT NO.104, P & T COLONY,
R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SALLAPPA,
3. N. S. RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SALLAPPA,
BOTH ARE R/AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
-3-
CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.VINAYAK, HCGP FOR R1,ADVOCATE;
SRI.SARAVANA.S. ADV FOR R2 & R3)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.258/2016 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that they along with accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 and others are the joint owners of the subject properties, and the suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.445/2010 was decreed allotting the legitimate share to the complainants, and other joint owners and despite the decree, accused Nos.1 and 2 have conveyed the subject properties in favour of the petitioners/accused Nos.7 to 10.
-4-CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017
2. Learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police after investigation registered the FIR for the offence under Sections 144, 415, 416, 418, 420, 423, 429, 431, 432, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, accused Nos.7 to 10 are before this Court.
3. Sri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature which is evident from the multiple civil litigations pending between the complainants and accused Nos.1 and 2 and other joint owners. He further submits that, the sale deed executed in favour of accused Nos.7 to 10 is also challenged by the complainants and the said suit is pending consideration. Hence, he submits that in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of aforesaid offences, the registration of the FIR is impermissible.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainants submits that the accused Nos.1 to 6 -5- CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017 having no individual right title over the subject properties have executed the sale deed in favour of accused Nos.7 to 10 due to which the complainants have suffered huge monetary loss and also suffered mental agony.
5. I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the complainants had filed O.S.No.445/2010 for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the subject properties, and the said suit was decreed on 28.09.2015. The decree was challenged in R.A.No.15091/2016 and pending consideration of the said Regular Appeal, the FIR was registered.
7. Even accepting the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it, utmost, tantamount to conveying of the subject property in favour of accused Nos.7 to 10 without absolute right-title over the subject properties and it would not constitute offence of cheating or forgery of the documents as -6- CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017 alleged in the complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature but however, given a criminal texture.
8. The offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are cognizable, and the complaint is not supported by an affidavit for having complied with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the complaint filed without filing the verifying affidavit for having complied with Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C, the complaint filed is held to be not maintainable in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 28.
9. In view of the above, I am of the view that continuation of the investigation against the petitioners/accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.-7- CRL.P No. 1112 of 2017
ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.144/2016 registered by the Vishwanathapura Police Station insofar it relates to accused Nos.7 to 10 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11