Karnataka High Court
Mr M A Charles vs State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2876 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MR. M.A. CHARLES,
S/O M. ARUL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.96, SBM LAYOUT,
ANAND NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU -560 001
REP STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COUT.
2. SRI. CHETHANKUMAR T.,
S/O K. THIPPAIAH,
R/AT NO.16, BEERESWARA NILAYA
2
13TH CROSS AND 19TH CROSS,
R.B.I. COLONY, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR -ADV., FOR
SRI. P.M. NARAYANASWAMY FOR R-2;
SMT. RASHMI JADHAV FOR HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO. 6241/2017 ON THE FILE OF IV ACMM,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU FILED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNASHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406,420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in CC No.6241/2017 arose in PCR No.4271/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, which is pending before the Court of IV CMM, Bangalore City.
3
2. The matter is posted for admission. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. H.V. Manjunath and so also the learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Ramesh Kumar B., who is present before the court physically, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. It is transpired in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in PCR No.4271/2016 that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 406, 417, 418, 420, 423 and 506 of IPC. Consequent to filing of complaint before the Court of IV ACMM, Bengaluru, the case has been referred as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru City, for investigation and submitting the report. Subsequent to referring the case, the 1st respondent has registered the case in Crime No.120/2016 for the 4 aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and after completion of the investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court of IV ACMM, Bengaluru in CC No.6241/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC vide document No.4. The entire charge sheet is produced for the purpose of perusal for consideration.
4. It is further transpired in a theory set up by the private complaint instituted by the 2nd respondent who is a complainant before the trial court in CC No.6241/2017 and wherein it is alleged that, entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant-R2 on 01.12.2014 in respect of apartment in property bearing No.96, situated at Hebbal, Bengaluru for sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only). The petitioner who is arraigned as accused alleged 5 to issued an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) and thereafter the accused has failed to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration amount. The 2nd respondent herein has instituted the original suit in O.S. No.5922/2015 for specific performance which is pending for adjudication between the plaintiffs and the defendants. However, the complainant has filed a private complaint against the accused alleging that the accused has cheated the complainant by not executing the sale deed and playing fraud by making alleged deviation in sanctioned plan for construction of building.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein produced an agreement of sale dated 01.12.2014 and also katha of the plaintiff in O.S.No.5922/2015 vide documents No.5 and 6. On all these premises, the counsel for the petitioner seeking to intervene for 6 quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in CC No.6241/2017, which is pending for trial against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
6. Whereas, the learned counsel for R-2 herein submits that the accused did not execute the sale deed and playing fraud by making alleged deviation in sanctioned plan with constructing the building. Therefore, intending to file a private complaint against the accused, wherein, the accused alleged to have received an amount of Rs.70 Lakhs and thereafter he has failed to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration as there was a sale consideration of Rs.80 Lakhs. On all these premises, the counsel for the respondent submits that the petition did not hold any substantiation for consideration for 7 quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in CC No.6241/2017.
7. It is in this context of the contention taken by the learned counsel for the parties in this petition, it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 2019 SC 210 in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr., wherein it is held that Penal Code Section 406 - quashing of FIR - Criminal breach of trust - Development agreement entered into between parties for construction of high-rise building - Accused allegedly misappropriating Rs.1 Crore deposited by complainant - company as interest free deposit on signing of agreement - No material showing that accused either misappropriated amount deposited by way of security or dishonestly used it contrary to any law or contract. 8 However, in this judgment, referred the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows :
".....Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged..."
The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.
We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of Rs.One Crore except by filing this criminal complaint. This action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable."
8. But in the instant case, in O.S.No.9622/2014, filed by the 2nd respondent against 9 the petitioner/accused which is pending for adjudication on the part of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is the suit for specific performance. When the case is pending for adjudication is a civil in nature that the complainant who had instituted the criminal proceedings against the accused in a PCR No.4271/2017, whereby it is referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Hebbal Police and based upon the complaint referred, a crime came to be registered and then investigated by the respondent-police and also charge sheet against the accused in CC No.6241/2017. Whereas, it is relevant to refer the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, wherein it is held as under :
" "In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that 10 the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice".
9. Whereas, the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. But in the instant case, the criminal has notched to the 11 2nd respondent who is the author of the complaint and has filed a private complaint before the Court of IV ACMM, Bengalore subsequent to referring the case to the 1st respondent-police. The police has investigated the case thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused in CC No.6241/2017. The civil suit is pending for adjudication as a rank of plaintiff and defendant in O.S.No.5922/2015. The petitioner herein who is arraigned as defendant No.4 in the aforesaid original suit. Therefore, it is said that, if not exercise power as contemplated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of justice, it is the object of the aforesaid provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No hesitation in quashing the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused relating to the case in CC No.6241/2017 arose out of PCR No.4271/2015. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I am 12 of the considered opinion that the petition is hereby allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused which is pending before the IV ACMM, Bengaluru in CC No.6241/2017. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following:
The petition filed by the petitioner-accused under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in CC No.6241/2017 is hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE snc