Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kupendra Reddy D vs Smt Yashoda A on 15 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33580
CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8212 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 123 OF 2020
IN CRL.P.NO.8212/2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI. KUPENDRA REDDY D.,
DIRECTOR,
M/S PRIMAL PROJECT PVT. LTD.,
NO.97/B, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560095.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.V.SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.M.SURESH REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. YASHODA A.,
W/O GNANABHUSHANA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
signed by R/AT NO.9, AKSHAYA BUIDLING,
SUMA 1ST FLOOR, 20TH CROSS,
Location: 7TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE,
HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 036.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. N.MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AND SMT. RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO.211, BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
HONGASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LOKESH R. YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SRI SATHYANARAYANA S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33580
CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2019 IN PCR NO.10366/2018 TAKING COGNIZANCE
AGAINST THE PETITIONER REGISTRATION OF C.C.NO.23220/2019
AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P.NO.123/2020:
BETWEEN:
RMZ INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE MILLENIA, TOWER B LEVEL, 12-14,
NO.1 AND 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560008.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
G.MADHUSUDHANA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YASHODA A
WIFE OF GNANABHUSHAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9,
AKSHAYA BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR, 20TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560076.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33580
CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020
2. N.MUNIREDDY
SON OF LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.211,
BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
HONGASANDRA,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560068.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2019 (AT ANNEXURE-A) IN PCR NO.10366/2018
TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND
REGISTRATION OF C.C. NO.23220/2019 AND ISSUANCE OF
SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRTE AT
BENGALURU
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IN Crl.P. No.8212/2019
The petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No.8 in C.C. No.23220/2019, which was initially filed before the IV -4- NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') and presently pending trial before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') has filed this petition to quash the order dated 03.08.2019 taking cognizance of the offences against him and ordering issuance of process to him.
2. The respondents filed PCR No.10366/2018 before the Trial Court contending that Sri Nanjundappa alias Papayya had inherited a few properties from his parents. The said Nanjundappa's wife died about 20 years next before the date of the registered Will dated 23.12.1940 and Sri Nanjundappa had 3 daughters namely, Smt.Thimmakka, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt.Venkatamma. He had executed a Will dated 23.12.1940 dividing his properties into three shares and -5- NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 bequeathed them to the second daughter - Smt. Lakshmamma and third daughter - Smt. Venkatamma and Smt. Muniyamma, daughter of Smt. Thimmakka. The respondents claimed that as per the Will dated 23.12.1940, a house bearing kaneshumari No.8 and an agricultural land in Re-Sy. No.80/3 fell to the share of Smt. Muniyamma. After the execution of the said Will, he decided to execute another Will dated 08.07.1946 whereby the properties allotted to Smt. Venkatamma and Smt. Lakshmamma under the first Will dated 23.12.1940 were changed and the properties of Smt. Lakshmamma were given to Smt. Venkatamma's son Sri Jayaram and the property allotted to Smt. Venkatamma was given to Smt. Lakshmamma. However, there was no change in the properties that were given to Smt. Muniyamma. The respondents claimed that the State Government notified acquisition of the land bearing Sy. Nos.17/2, 17/6 and 25/1 of Bellandur village, Bengaluru East Taluk, for the purpose of formation of outer ring road between Varthur road and Sarjapura Road and these lands formed part of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 the estate of Sri Jayaram under the Will dated 08.07.1946. In the preliminary notification dated 06.04.1992, the name of the khatedar and anubhavdar of Sy. Nos.17/2, 17/6 and 25/1 of Bellandur village was shown as Sri Nanjundappa. The State Government had acquired 08 guntas in Sy. Nos.17/2 and 04 guntas in Sy. No.17/6 and 08 guntas in Sy. No.25/1 of Bellandur village. As per the Will dated 08.07.1946, the acquired land was to be inherited by Sri Jayaram. Nonetheless, with an intention to unjustly enrich themselves, Sri Ankappa Reddy, son of late Sri Abbaiah and Smt. Muniyamma executed a false and fraudulent special power of attorney dated 21.03.2007 and claimed compensation concerning land/s measuring: 04 guntas in Sy. No.17/6, which is the subject matter of LAC No.481/2000; 08 guntas in Sy. No.25/1, which is the subject matter of LAC No.484/2000 and 06 guntas in Sy. No.17/2, which is the subject matter of LAC No.479/2000 and the said Land Acquisition Cases are stated to be pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-
24) and withdrew the compensation illegally. The -7- NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 respondents claimed that the remaining extent of land in Sy. No.17/2 was 02 guntas and 03 guntas in Sy. No.25/1 which belonged to Sri Jayaram. However, in respect of 03 guntas of land in Sy. No.25/1, Sri Narasimha Murthy and Sri B.K Prasad had applied for conversion of land for non- agricultural purpose which was granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide Official Memorandum No.BDA.AALN:(E)VB:ASR:103:2002-2003 dated 10.12.2002. The remaining 02 guntas in Sy. No.17/2 was renumbered as Sy. No.17/2P as the State Government had acquired 06 guntas. The respondents alleged that the family members of Sri Abbaiah manipulated documents such as notices by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued to Sri Nanjundappa dated 09.10.1992 and thus, got their names entered in respect of land in Sy. Nos.17/2, 17/6 and 25/1 of Bellandur village. The respondents therefore alleged that the family members of Sri Abbaiah committed acts of forgery and misrepresentation and received the compensation by concocting and fabricating documents. The respondents -8- NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 alleged that the family members of Sri Abbaiah, namely, accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 illegally sold 03 guntas of land in Sy. No.25/1, which belonged to Sri Jayaram, to Sri Narashima Murthy and Sri B.K. RamaPrasad in terms of a sale deed registered as document No.607/2002-03. They also alleged that the wife of Sri Abbaiah along with the accused No.1 illegally claimed compensation of Rs.1,06,500/- from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) claiming to be the owner of land measuring 02 guntas in Sy. No.17/2 and thus, committed an offence of forging of documents and thereby cheated Sri Jayaram. The respondents alleged that Sri Jayaram died a bachelor and therefore, the properties of Sri Jayaram went to his sisters, namely, Smt. Akkayamma and Smt. Ramakka who also died and the property fell to the share of Smt. Yashodamma (daughter of Smt. Akkayamma) and Sri Muni Reddy (son of Smt. Ramakka) who are the respondents. The respondents alleged that the KIADB joined hands with petitioner herein, who was the Managing Director of M/s.Primal Projects Private -9- NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 Limited ('M/s. Primal Projects' for short), and allotted the land in Sy. No.17/2 to M/s. Primal Projects which later sold it to MRPL. It is alleged that the accused sold the land in Sy. No.17/2P to M/s.Primal Projects represented by its Managing Director and he sold the same to M/s.Millennia Realtors Private Limited ('MRPL' for brevity)). The respondents alleged that the petitioner was highly influential and had created forged documents by mentioning old Sy. No.17/2 as 17/2P with the help of accused Nos.1 to 5 and illegally grabbed the property that belonged to the legal heirs of Sri Jayaram.
3. The Trial Court in its order dated 03.10.2018, noticed that the petitioner had failed to comply Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Priyanka Srivatsava and Another v State of U.P. and others [AIR 2015 SC 1758], held that the complaint cannot be referred for investigation, yet it posted the case for recording the sworn statement of the respondents. Later,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 the sworn statements of the respondents were recorded and after considering the same, the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 03.08.2019, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused and directed the office to register criminal case, which was numbered as C.C. No.23220/2019, and to issue process to the accused. The petitioner has therefore, filed this petition challenging the said order of the Trial Court taking cognizance and issuance of summons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private complaint is extremely vague and confusing. The respondents claimed to be the second class legal heirs of Sri Jayaram in whose favour a Will dated 08.07.1946 was purportedly executed by Sri Nanjundappa. He submitted that the land bearing Sy. No.17/2 measuring 2 guntas situate at Bellandur was acquired by the KIADB and was allotted to M/s. Primal
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 Projects. He submitted that the petitioner cannot be accused of any offence particularly by accusing him of creating and concocting forged documents to grab the land in Sy. No.17/2, as it was an allottee from the KIADB. He also contended that the Trial Court having once held that the complaint cannot be entertained for non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C could not have gone ahead to record the sworn statement of the respondents. He further submitted that a perusal of the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence committed by the petitioner and therefore, the order of the Trial Court taking cognizance against the petitioner deserves to be interfered with.
5. Per contra, the respective learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 submitted that the land bearing Sy. No.17/2 which belonged to Sri Jayaram was though acquired by the BDA, the compensation was received by Sri Ankappa Reddy, son of late Sri Abbaiah and Smt. Muniyamma and thereby, he has committed
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 fraud. He further submitted that in respect of the remaining 02 guntas in Sy. No.17/2, the petitioner as Director of M/s.Primal Projects, had conspired with the KIADB in getting the same allotted. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted. He relied upon the judgments of a coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Criminal Petition No.5641/2020 (decided on 22.01.2021) and Criminal Petition No.227/2021 (decided on 01.03.2021) and contended that this Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C until a final report is filed. He also relied upon the judgment High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case of Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. & 6 Ors. [Criminal Appeal No.21/2021 decided on 08.01.2021] and contended that the learned Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of the offences and therefore, has rightly ordered issuance of process to the petitioner.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respective learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. The only allegation that can be discerned from the private complaint against the petitioner is that KIADB after acquiring Sy. No.17/2P of Bellandur village measuring 02 guntas had allotted it to the petitioner who was Director of M/s.Primal Project Private Limited. The other allegation is that the petitioner sold it to MRPL despite knowing the fact that Sy. No.17/2P belonged to Sri Jayaram. The petitioner has placed on record a lease cum sale agreement dated 10.11.2003 executed by KIADB in favour of M/s.Primal Projects which shows that portions of various survey numbers including Sy. No.17/2P, 17/3P and 17/4P of Bellandur village measuring 0.02 guntas, 0.01 gunta, 0.01 gunta respectively and were allotted to M/s.Primal Projects. If the respondents have any grievance over the accused Nos.1 to 7 in bringing about illegal transactions in Sy. No.17/2P of Bellandur, that does not
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 provide a handle to the respondents to accuse the petitioner of any offence much less the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is rather strange that the Trial Court without even looking into the private complaint has merely held as follows:
"In support of the said contentions the complainant has also produced documents.
The complainant has made out grounds to
proceed against the accused. The
dishonest and fraudulent intention and
criminal breach of trust and
misappropriation are to be decided at trial".
When there was no shred of evidence against the petitioner, the Trial Court casually took cognizance of an offence which was not made out against the petitioner.
8. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.23220/2019 presently pending trial before the III
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed.
9. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A No.1/2023 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
IN Crl.P. No.123/2020
10. The petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No.9 in C.C. No.23220/2019, which was initially filed before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') and presently pending trial before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), has filed this petition to quash the order dated 03.08.2019
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directing issuance of process to it.
11. The respondents filed a PCR No.10366/2018 before the Trial Court contending that Sri Nanjundappa alias Papayya had inherited a few properties from his parents. The said Nanjundappa's wife died 20 years next before the date of the registered Will dated 23.12.1940 and Sri Nanjundappa had 3 daughters namely, Smt.Thimmakka, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt.Venkatamma. He had executed a Will dated 23.12.1940 dividing his properties into three shares and bequeathed them to the second daughter - Smt. Lakshmamma and third daughter - Smt. Venkatamma and Smt. Muniyamma, daughter of Smt. Thimmakka. The respondents claimed that as per the Will dated 23.12.1940, a house bearing kaneshumari No.8 and an agricultural land in Sy. No.80/3 fell to the share of Smt. Muniyamma. After the execution of the said Will, he decided to execute another Will dated 08.07.1946
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 whereby the properties allotted to Smt. Venkatamma and Smt. Lakshmamma were changed and the properties of Smt. Lakshmamma were given to Smt. Venkatamma's son
- Sri Jayaram and the property allotted to Smt. Venkatamma was given to Smt. Lakshmamma. However, there was no change in the properties that were given to Smt. Muniyamma. The respondents claimed that the State Government notified the land bearing Sy. Nos.17/2, 17/6 and 25/1 of Bellandur village, Bengaluru East Taluk, for the purpose of formation of outer ring road between Varthur road and Sarjapura road and these lands formed part of the estate of Sri Jayaram under the Will dated 08.07.1946. In the preliminary notification dated 06.04.1992, the name of the khatedar and anubhavdar of Sy. Nos.17/2, 17/6 and 25/1 of Bellandur village was shown as Sri Nanjundappa. The State Government had acquired 08 guntas in Sy. No.17/2, 04 guntas in Sy. No.17/6 and 08 guntas in Sy. No.25/1 of Bellandur village. As per the Will dated 08.07.1946, the acquired land was to inherited by Sri Jayaram. Nonetheless, with an intention
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 to unjustly enrich themselves, Sri Ankappa Reddy, son of late Sri Abbaiah and Smt. Muniyamma executed a false and fraudulent special power of attorney dated 21.03.2007 and claimed compensation concerning land/s measuring:
04 guntas in Sy. No.17/6, which is the subject matter of LAC No.481/2000; 08 guntas in Sy. No.25/1, which is the subject matter of LAC No.484/2000 and 06 guntas in Sy.
No.17/2, which is the subject matter of LAC No.479/2000 and the said Land Acquisition Cases are stated to be pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-
24) and withdrew the compensation illegally. The respondents claimed that the remaining extent of land in Sy. No.17/2 was 02 guntas and 03 guntas in Sy. No.25/1 which belonged to Sri Jayaram. However, in respect of 03 guntas of land in Sy. No.25/1, Sri Narasimha Murthy and Sri B.K Prasad had applied for conversion of land for non- agricultural purposes which was granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide official memorandum No.BDA. AALN:(E)VB:ASR:103:2002-03 dated 10.12.2002. The remaining 02 guntas in Sy. No.17/2 was renumbered as
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 Sy. No.17/2P as the State Government also acquired 06 guntas. The respondents alleged that the family members of Sri Abbaiah/Sri Abbhaiah manipulated documents such as notices by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued to Sri Nanjundappa dated 09.10.1992 and thus, got their names entered in respect of land in Sy. Nos.17/2, 17/6 and 25/1 of Bellandur village. The respondents therefore alleged that the family members of Sri Abbaiah committed acts of forgery and misrepresentation and received the compensation by concocting and fabricating documents. The respondents alleged that the family members of Sri Abbaiah, namely, accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 illegally sold 03 guntas of land in Sy. No.25/1, which belonged to Sri Jayaram, to Sri Narashima Murthy and Sri B.K. RamaPrasad in terms of a sale deed registered as document No.607/2002-03. They also alleged that the wife of Sri Abbaiah along with the accused No.1 illegally claimed compensation of Rs.1,06,500/- from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) claiming to be the owner of land measuring 02 guntas in
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 Sy. No.17/2 and thus, committed an offence of forging of documents and thereby cheated Sri Jayaram. The respondents alleged that Sri Jayaram died a bachelor and therefore, the properties of Sri Jayaram went to his sisters, namely, Smt. Akkayamma and Smt. Ramakka who also died and the property fell to the share of Smt. Yashodamma (daughter of Smt. Akkayamma) and Sri Muni Reddy (son of Smt. Ramakka) who are the respondents. The respondents alleged that the KIADB joined hands with petitioner herein, who was the Managing Director of M/s.Primal Projects Private Limited ('M/s. Primal Projects' for short), and allotted the land in Sy. No.17/2 to M/s. Primal Projects which later sold it to MRPL. It is alleged that the accused sold the land in Sy. No.17/2P to M/s.Primal Projects represented by its Managing Director and he sold the same to M/s.Millennia Realtors Private Limited ('MRPL' for brevity)). The respondents alleged that the petitioner along with M/s.Primal Projects hatched a conspiracy with accused Nos.1 to 8 and forged documents
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 and cause monetary loss to the respondents and committed fraud on them.
12. The Trial Court in its order dated 03.10.2018, noticed that the petitioner had failed to comply Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Priyanka Srivatsava and Another v State of U.P. and others [AIR 2015 SC 1758], held that the complaint cannot be entertained, yet it posted the case for recording the sworn statement of the respondents. Later, the sworn statements of the respondents were recorded and after considering the same, the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 03.08.2019, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused and directed office to register criminal case, which was numbered as C.C. No.23220/2019, and to issue process to the accused. The petitioner has therefore,
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 filed this petition challenging the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private complaint is extremely vague and confusing. The respondents claimed to be the second class legal heirs of Sri Jayaram in whose favour a Will dated 08.07.1946 was purportedly executed. He submitted that the land bearing Sy. No.17/2 measuring 02 guntas of Bellandur was acquired by the KIADB and allotted to M/s.Primal Projects which in turn entered into a joint development agreement with M/s.MRPL who developed an Information Technology Park. Consequent to such development, M/s.MRPL conveyed its entire undivided share in the IT park in favour of the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 12.01.2012. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be accused of any offence particularly by accusing it of creating and concocting forged documents to grab the land in Sy. No.17/2, allottee of which was M/s.Primal Projects from KIADB. He also
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 contended that the Trial Court having once held that the complaint cannot be entertained for non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C could not have gone ahead to record the sworn statement of the respondents. He further submitted that a perusal of the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence committed by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court taking cognizance against the petitioner deserves to be interfered with. Further, he contends that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and none of the Directors of the petitioner - Company was arraigned as accused in the case. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioner.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
15. The only allegation that can be discerned from the private complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner had along with M/s.Primal Projects had hatched
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 a conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 7 and forged the documents and caused monetary loss to them. It is not seriously disputed that 02 guntas of land in Sy. No.17/2 was part of the land acquired by the KIADB and which was allotted to M/s.Primal Projects. The same is evident from the lease-cum-Sale agreement dated 10.11.2003 executed by KIADB in favour of M/s.Primal Projects. It is claimed that after satisfactory completion of the lease period, KIADB conveyed land in Sy. No.17/2 amongst other lands to M/s.Primal Projects who entered into a joint development agreement with M/s.MRPL, who developed an I.T. park on the land in question. M/s.MRPL conveyed its share of development to the petitioner. Therefore, unless there is any incriminating material to show that the petitioner was involved in any offence to cheat the respondents by fabricating or forging documents, the Trial Court committed a blunder in taking cognizance blindly without even cursorily looking at the averments made in the private complaint. The allegations in the private complaint are directed more against accused Nos.1 to 7
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33580 CRL.P No. 8212 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 123 of 2020 than against the other accused No.9 who was the allottee of the land in Sy. No.17/2 from the KIADB and subsequent purchasers. In the case on hand, there is no material to proceed against the petitioner and the private complaint in PCR NO.10366/2018 filed by the respondents is a clear abuse of the process of law.
16. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No23220/2019 pending trial before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 405, 406, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25