Karnataka High Court
G Suryakanth Reddy S/O. Veera Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10409/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G SURYAKANTH REDDY
S/O. VEERA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O. MILLERSPET, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY.
2. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. K. CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O. KAUL BAZAAR, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY.
3. SRI. PAMPANA GOWDA
S/O. GIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O. MILLERSPET, BELLARY.
DIST: BELLARY.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.G K HIREGOUDAR : B B BAJENTRI, ADVS.)
2
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTED. BY SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION,
SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.P. H. GOTKHINDI, AGA)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
NOS.2, 3 & 4 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
COURT, SIRUGUPPA IN CRIME NO.79/2011 VIDE
(ANNEXURE-F).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners seek quashing of the investigation in progress on the file of S.H.O of Siruguppa Police Station, Siruguppa in Crime No.79/2011, which is registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In respect of the relief so sought, it is averred petitioners are 3 agriculturists and own several lands in Bellary. The 2nd petitioner is a merchant, who has business in Bellary. 3rd petitioner is an agriculturist settled also in Bellary. They are law-abiding citizens.
2. It is averred one Chikkaramapura Hanumanthappa claiming to be owner of the land measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in survey No.34 of Siregere Village, Takkalkot Hobli, Siruguppa Taluk obtained mutation in his name and offered to sell the property to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 believing his assertions purchased the said land on 31.12.2008 and is now in physical possession of the same. It is further alleged that, he is a bonafide purchaser for value, but one Sri. Parameshwar Gowda has lodged a report before the jurisdictional police station alleging sale deed and other documents were fraudulent. According to the complainant, he is the owner of the land and not Chikkaramapura 4 Hanumanthappa. It is submitted that, such a stand taken by complainant may give rise to evil disputes, but not an action in criminal law. Therefore, proceedings are sought to be quashed.
3. No doubt, the claim of the complainant appears to be, he is the owner of the land and not the executant of the sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner. The circumstances narrated in the complaint may be civil dispute, but the allegations in the complaint are that the petitioners herein and the Chikkaramapura Hanumanthappa have concocted documents as if the property belongs to Chikkaramapura Hanumanthappa. Therefore, charge for cheating is raised besides other offences. The case is at the stage of investigation by the Investigating Officer. The investigation has commenced and undoubtedly, the First Information Report has been submitted under Section 154 of 5 Cr.P.C. The investigation has to reach the logical end. It may even result in filing of a negative report in the form of 'B' report. Therefore, at this stage, the request made by the petitioner to quash the proceedings certainly is premature.
4. Even if the final report is filed raising charges against them, the petitioners will certainly have right to seek discharge. Being of this view, I am constrained to hold that, petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings does not merit admission.
5. Hence the petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all grounds urged in this petition and such other grounds as may be available to seek discharge.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-