Karnataka High Court
Mr. Purushotham Rai vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5499/2019
BETWEEN:
MR. PURUSHOTHAM RAI
S/O. HUKRAPPA RAI
AGED 40 YEARS
R/AT CENTRAL PARK APARTMENT
FLAT NO.401
BEHIND ABHARANA JEWELRY
KADRI, SHIVABAGH
MANGALURU-575 002
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
RAI PROMOTORS (P) LTD. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALURU-560 001
2. SATYENDRAKUMAR GOYAL
AUTHORIZED PARTNER
M/s. SAI SHRADHA REALTORS
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, G2
AKSHAT BUILDING
RAM MANDIR ROAD
2
BORIVALI EAST
MUMBAI-400 091. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN FIR FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.62/2019 OF KANKANADY
TOWN P.S., ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 471 AND
468 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner entered into a Joint Development Agreement ('JDA for short) with respondent No.2 and received a sum of Rs.5 Crores from 3 him. The petitioner did not act upon in pursuance of the JDA in respect of 8 acres and 64 guntas of land instead of he agreed to sell the property to the extent of 2 acres, which was standing in favour of mother of the complainant and subsequently he entered into the sale agreement dated 5.4.2016 with some one else. Hence, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.62/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 and 468 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the JDA not acted upon, notice was issued and reply was also given and thereafter a suit was filed. Hence, it is clear that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, document No.5 that there was a complaint and the said complaint is inter se between the petitioner and its partners. The civil dispute converted as criminal case by filing a false complaint. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.
4
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Complainant would submit that though the amount of Rs.5 Crores was received and subsequent to entering into the JDA, the petitioner also created interest in favour of other persons by executing the Sale Agreement dated 5.4.2016. Hence, it clearly shows that in order to commit the fraud on respondent No.2, the petitioner has indulged in entering into the Sale Agreement. Hence, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that based on the complaint, the offences are invoked against the petitioner and the stage of investigation and the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and on perusal of the complaint averments, a specific allegation has been made against this petitioner with regard to 5 committing the fraud against respondent No.2 alleging that he had received an amount of Rs.5 Crores from respondent No.2. In spite of receipt of the amount of Rs.5 Crores, the petitioner did not come forward to complete the JDA terms and conditions. The allegation shows that having an intention to defraud and to cheat respondent No.2 entered into the agreement subsequent to JDA. No doubt, the document discloses that a civil suit is pending between the parties and mere filing of civil suit not take away the right of respondent No.2 to initiate the proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC. When the specific allegation is made, the matter has to be investigated. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of subsequent sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and the subsequent prospective purchasers.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected.6
In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*