Karnataka High Court
Sri.T.L.Ramachandra Reddy vs M.Srinivasreddy on 27 June, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.112 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T.L.RAMACHANDRA REDDY
S/O LATE LAKSHAIH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
2. SRI T.R.BABU REDDY
S/O SRI T.L.RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
3. SRI T.R.MANJUNATH
S/O SRI T.L.RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
4. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI
D/O SRI T.L.RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
ALL R/O THIRUPALYA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.G.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M.SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2
R/O 81/46/5, BEHIND BESCOM OFFICE
KUDLU GATE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 068.
... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND THE
ORDER DATED 10.08.2020 PASSED IN P.C.R.NO.451/2019
(C.C.NO.7544/2020) ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 447, 420 AND 468 OF IPC AND ALLOW THIS
PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are before this Court
calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.7544 of 2020 pending
on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal,
Bangalore Rural District arising out of PCR No.451 of 2019
registered for offences punishable under Sections 447, 420 and
468 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri R.G.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. The respondent though served long ago remained
absent and unrepresented even on the date when the matter was
heard and reserved for its order.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The respondent/complainant registers a complaint
invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in PCR No.451 of 2019. The
case of the complainant is that he has purchased property in
Sy.No.16/1 measuring one gunta out of 28 guntas of Thirupalya
Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk from accused
No.1/Sri.T.L.Ramachandra Reddy in terms of a registered sale
deed dated 01-04-2006. In terms of the sale deed, it is the claim
of the complainant that accused No.1 had delivered vacant
possession of the subject property to him and revenue entries
were also changed into his name pursuant to the said sale deed.
It is the further case of the complainant that when he visited the
property in the year 2017, he was shocked to know that accused
Nos. 1 to 6 had illegally entered his property and had began
construction of a multistoried building. It is his claim that he
made efforts to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police,
but they refused to entertain the complaint against accused No.1
and had advised the complainant to approach the civil Court as
the matter was civil in nature. It is then the complainant claims
to have registered the private complaint for the aforesaid
offences.
4. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 10th August
2020 takes cognizance of the offences alleged against the
accused i.e., for offences punishable under Sections 447, 420
and 468 of the IPC and the matter is now pending before the
learned Magistrate in C.C.No.7544 of 2020. It is after the learned
Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences and issues summons
to the petitioners, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this
Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the respondent/complainant has already filed a
civil suit on the very same cause of action and the matter is
pending adjudication. He has contended that the Joint
Development Agreement does not cover the area which the
complainant is alleged to have purchased the property. The
share of the petitioners in the said Joint Development Agreement
is only to the tune of 37%. It is not the case of the complainant
even in O.S.No.144 of 2017 that one gunta of his land is
included in 35 guntas. The complaint itself runs counter to what
the complainant himself states in the civil suit.
6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is the
claim of the complainant that he is the owner of one gunta of
land in the aforesaid survey number i.e., Sy.No.16/1 out of 28
guntas of land, having purchased it from the hands of accused
No.1/petitioner No.1. A Joint Development Agreement is entered
between the power of attorney holder of the petitioners and a
particular developer on 8th May 2014. According to the
complainant, the Joint Development Agreement also covers one
gunta of land which he owns where a multistoried building is
coming up. It is germane to notice that the very complainant,
even before registration of the complaint, has instituted civil
proceedings against the present petitioners and other accused
who are parties to the Joint Development Agreement. The suit is
filed on 31st March 2017 and the matter is pending adjudication
before the competent Court.
7. A perusal at the copy of the plaint in the suit which is
appended to the subject petition clearly depicts that it is the
same cause of action that is agitated by the complainant in the
civil proceedings. Long after registration of civil suit, wherein he
failed to get any order of injunction against the petitioners, the
complainant takes recourse to registration of the crime by the
impugned private complaint in PCR No.451 of 2019. What would
unmistakably emerge, in the light of the facts narrated
hereinabove, is that the matter is purely civil in nature. A matter
which is purely civil in nature is given a colour of crime by
setting the criminal law in motion by registration of the
complaint.
8. The complaint nowhere narrates or appends documents
to demonstrate that the complainant had in fact approached the
Police for registration of the crime and police have refused to
register it which drove him to register the private complaint
invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Section 154 (1) and (3) of
the Cr.P.C. mandates that efforts should be made to register a
complaint before the Police and after having failed in the efforts,
then only the private complaint can be registered under Section
200 of the Cr.P.C. Except making a bald statement, no
document is even appended to demonstrate that in fact a
complaint was sought to be registered. Therefore, the complaint
filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is not in compliance with
Section 154 (1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C. This is besides the fact that
the matter is purely civil in nature and is given a colour of crime.
9. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of SARDAR ALI KHAN v. STATE OF U.P.1 in the
circumstances becomes apposite. In the said judgment it is held
as follows:
"8. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has
purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29.12.1993
which was registered on 5-1-1994. The father of the 2nd
(2020) 12 SCC 51
respondent died on 3-12-1997. Though the registered sale
deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is
pending in OS No. 160 of 2008, only in the year 2008 seeking
cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid sale deed
was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making
use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and
fraudulent manner. There is no allegation of impersonation or
forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. It
is the case of the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a
signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though the suit was
filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent has chosen to file
the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 alleging forgery
and impersonation. With regard to the validity of the sale
deed, matter is seized up before the competent civil court and
it is for the civil court to decide whether any fraud is played or
not by the appellant, on the late father of the 2nd respondent
for obtaining the sale deed. When the very same issue is
seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot
pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged
offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Although, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent that complaint filed is not barred by limitation but
at the same time it appears, there is no reason for lodging
private complaint in the year 2012. The sale deed on which
basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant was
registered on 5.1.1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14
years. Even after filing of the suit on 24-8-2008 there is
further about 4 years' delay in filing the criminal complaint
against the appellant herein. Allowing the proceedings to go
on against the appellant who is stated to be about 87 years,
in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the process.
9. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of
impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by
the 2nd respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the
2nd respondent for cancellation of sale deed is pending
consideration before the competent court of law, the 2nd
respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal
proceedings by improving his case. Having regard to serious
factual disputes which are of civil nature, for which civil suits
are pending, allowing the 2nd respondent to pursue his
complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of the
process of law. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the
considered view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be
quashed by allowing this appeal.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is
allowed and the impugned order dated 12-3-2018 passed
in Wasim Ali Khan v. State of U.P. [Wasim Ali Khan v. State of
U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 5928] by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is set aside, consequently, the
application filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC
stands allowed by quashing the proceedings in Complaint
Case No. 708 of 2012 for offence under Sections 418, 419,
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the file of Police Station
Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and
consequential orders passed by the Magistrate also stand
quashed."
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, considering the fact
that once the complainant has approached the civil Court on the
same cause of action, criminal law could not be set in motion, as
seriously disputed questions of fact which are civil in nature
cannot be agitated in a criminal case.
10. Later, the Apex Court in the case of JASWANT SINGH
v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER2 has held as follows:
"19. From the above discussion on the settled legal
principles, it is clear from the facts of the present case that
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1007
there was a clear abuse of the process of the Court and
further that the Court had a duty to secure the ends of justice.
We say so for the following reasons:
a) The allegations made in the FIR had an
overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil flavour
inasmuch as the complainant alleged that he had paid
money to Gurmeet Singh, the main accused to get
employment for his son abroad. If Gurmeet Singh failed
the complainant could have filed a suit for recovery of
the amount paid for not fulfilling the promise.
b) Initially, the investigating officer and two
superior officers of the economic wing has found that
there is no substance in the complaint making out even
a prima facie triable case and had therefore,
recommended for closure. However, on the orders of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, the FIR was registered
and the matter was investigated. No criminal breach of
trust was found and the charge sheet was submitted
only against Gurmeet Singh under section 420 I.P.C.
c) The complainant Nasib Singh had clearly
deposed that he had paid Rs. 4 lacs cash to Gurmeet
Singh and had also given a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs
favouring Gurmeet Singh which he had encashed.
d) During trial the present appellant as also the
other co-accused Gurpreet Singh were summoned in
April 2014 invoking powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C., for
being tried under Section 420 I.P.C. It may be noted that
no specific allegations of cheating are made against
these two accused as they were both settled abroad in
Italy.
e) The complainant Nasib Singh entered into a
compromise with the main accused Gurmeet Singh
which was filed before the learned Magistrate and the
same was accepted vide order dated 26.09.2014 and
the alleged offence being of financial transaction stood
compounded. Proceedings against Gurmeet Singh were
closed.
f) Right from 2014, the present appellant and
other co-accused Gurpreet Singh who were in Italy were
being summoned by the Court. The appellant was
declared proclaimed offender. The appellant applied
before the High Court challenging the order declaring
him proclaimed offender and also filed a 482 Cr.P.C.
petition for quashing of the proceedings wherein, he
also filed the compounding order of 26.09.2014.
g) The High Court merely perused the FIR and
noting the fact that the name of the appellant was
mentioned in the FIR, declined to exercise the inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20. In our considered view, the High Court erred in
firstly not considering the entire material on record and further
in not appreciating the fact that the dispute, if any, was civil
in nature and that the complainant had already settled his
score with the main accused Gurmeet Singh against whom the
proceedings have been closed as far back as 26.09.2014. In
this scenario, there remains no justification to continue with
the proceedings against the appellant."
In the light of the afore-quoted facts and judgments rendered by
the Apex Court on the issue, the case at hand becomes an
appropriate case where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings
against the petitioners, as the matter is purely civil in nature
and the complainant has already approached the civil Court on
the very same cause of action.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in
C.C.No.7544 of 2020 pending on the file of the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal,
Bangalore Rural District is set aside qua the
petitioners.
(ii) It is made clear that the observation made in the
course of this order is only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of the petitioners under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it shall not bind or
influence any other proceedings against the
petitioners or any other accused.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
