Karnataka High Court
R Dinesh Kumar S/O Roopchand vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2013
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2671/2012
BETWEEN:
R DINESH KUMAR
S/O ROOPCHAND
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF JAI ENTERPRISES
HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT NO.204,
II FLOOR, SURAJ GANGA ARCADE,
NO.332/7, 14TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S K VENKATA REDDY - ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIDDAPURA POLICE
BANGALORE CITY.
2. MANOJ BARAI
S/O KISHORE BARAI
HEAD OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
OF M/S PACIFICA
(BANGALORE PROJECTS)
DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
AND M/S PACIFICA
(BANGALORE PROJECTS)
INFRASTRUCTURE CO.
PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT 454, II FLOOR, 6TH A CROSS,
11TH MAIN, RMV EXTN.
BANGALORE - 560 080 ... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE - HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI.SAJJAN POOVAYYA AND SRI.P.B.ACHAPPA JOSEPH
ADVS. FOR SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA - ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR IN CR. NO.56/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
415,420,405,409,349,350,351 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
IV-A.C.M.M, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.56/2012 on the file of the first respondent-police registered for the offences u/ss.415, 420, 405, 409, 349, 350, 351of IPC.
2. The first respondent-police on the basis of the first information filed by the second respondent on 16.2.2012 have registered the case in Crime No.56/2012 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and have taken up the investigation. In the complaint inter alia among other things it is alleged that the petitioner claiming to be the owner of certain properties located in and around Bangalore, entered 3 into agreements with the second respondent/complainant for sale of the properties and in pursuance of the agreements mentioned in the complaint, received in all a sum of Rs.36.70 crores. After receipt of the said amount the allegation reveals the petitioner herein also produced the documents of title standing in his name in respect of the properties which he had agreed to sell in favour of the second respondent. The said documents were placed with King & Patridge, their Escrow Agents for verification. Later, second respondent came to know that the petitioner does not have proper title to the property and despite the same he has made them to part with the money and therefore, he has committed the aforementioned offences. The police on the basis of the first information, as already stated, have registered the case and have taken up the investigation.
3. Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the allegations in the complaint reveal that it is purely 4 of civil nature. The complaint averments clearly discloses the second respondent has entered into agreements with the petitioner. If at all there is any breach of the agreement, the course open to the second respondent is to resort to civil remedy for redressal of their grievance, more particularly in the light of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. The second respondent cannot resort to criminal proceedings by way of arm twisting method to put the petitioner into inconvenience. The investigation on the basis of a civil dispute should not be permitted and therefore, as the matter is of purely civil in nature, this Court in exercise of its power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. quash the proceedings in Crime No.56/2012 of the first respondent/police.
4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the powers of the police to investigate into the matter. The Apex Court in the decision in the case of Ram Biraji Devi and another - vs
- Umesh Kumar Singh and another reported in 2006(6) 5 SCC 669 has held that if the allegations in the complaint reveal the offences of the nature alleged in the present complaint and if there is an element of criminal intention, this Court in exercise of its power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with the investigation and therefore, there is no merit in the petition, it be dismissed.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent/State adopting the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No.2 submitted on facts this case does not call for quashing of the investigation hence the petition be dismissed.
6. Time and again it is said and it is settled position of law that once a case is registered by the police and investigation is on, the court cannot interfere with the powers of the police in the investigation of a case. In other words, this Court or even the Magistrate concerned should not interfere with the investigation. If after investigation the police finds 6 that there is no case made out, option is left to them to file 'B' report. If not if they find material connecting to the offence alleged they are at liberty to file 'A' report i.e. charge sheet u/s.173 of Cr.P.C.
7. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint now clearly discloses that the petitioner after entering into an agreement has received an amount to the tune of Rs.36.70 crores. Though a submission was made by the counsel for the petitioner that he is prepared to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreements entered into between him and the second respondent, since the allegations in the complaint reveal that he does not have proper title to the property, it is a matter for investigation. The Apex Court in the decision relied upon by the counsel for respondent NO.2 has held as follows :-
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.482 Inherent jurisdiction of High Court - When to be exercised - Held, should be exercised in extreme exceptions- Criminal complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the 7 appellants had refused to execute the written agreement transferring the plot in his favour for which he had already paid part consideration pursuant to an oral agreement - Cognizance under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120-B IPC taken by the Magistrate - High Court by the impugned order dismissing appellants petition for quashing the cognizance - Held, version of the complainant was self - contradictory since at one place he had stated that the oral agreement to sell took place in July 2002, while at the other he alleged that he started paying consideration amount between 15.07.2000 and 15.12.2002
- No prima facie case was made out against the appellants involving them in the commission of alleged offences - Even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust - Neither can any guilty intention be attributed to them nor can there possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant -
Averments of the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his
witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would 8 amount to civil liability inter se the parties and not criminal liability - Hence, cognizance taken by the Magistrate was clearly an abuse of the process of court warranting interference in the interest of justice - Instant case was a case of extreme exception where the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction and power to set aside the unwarranted and unjustified order of the Magistrate - Impugned order quashed - Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 419, 420 and 120-B."
In view of the aforesaid decision it cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the petitioner at this stage in order to quash the proceedings in exercise of the power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and it is dismissed. However, the first respondent/police are directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs