Smt Malathy K S vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5609 Kant

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5612 OF 2020

                            C/W

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.471 OF 2020

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5612 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.MALATHY K.S.,
     W/O T.M.SUNDARARAJAN
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     R/AT NO.223, 1ST FLOOR,
     2ND ALLOTMENT, 2ND MAIN ROAD
     10TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR
     YELAHANKA
     BENGALURU - 67.

2.   KARTHIK
     S/O T.M.SUNDARARAJAN
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     R/AT NO.223, 1ST FLOOR,
     2ND ALLOTMENT, 2ND MAIN ROAD
     10TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR
     YELAHANKA
     BENGALURU - 67.
                                              ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
                             2



AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 01.
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.201/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU
IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.471 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.     HEMANTH KAUSHIK
       S/O T.M.SUNDARARAJAN
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.223, 1ST FLOOR
       2ND ALLOTMENT, 2ND MAIN ROAD
       10TH CROSS, MARUTHINGAR
       YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 67.

2.     T.M.SUNDARARAJAN
       S/O T.M.MUNISWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
       R/AT NO.223, 1ST FLOOR
       2ND ALLOTMENT
       2ND MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS
                             3



       MARUTHINAGAR, YELAHANKA
       BENGALURU - 67.
                                             ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY
       THE YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
       BENGALURU CITY
       REPRESENTED BY SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDING,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     K.S.ASHOKA
       S/O LATE K.V.SRINIVAS
       MAJOR
       R/AT NO.223,
       1ST FLOOR, 2ND ALLOTMENT
       2ND MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS,
       MARUTHINAGAR, YELAHANKA
       BENGALURU - 67.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.201/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU
IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.


     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               4



                             ORDER

Petitioners/Accused 1 and 4 have preferred Criminal

Petition No.471 of 2020 and petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3

have preferred Criminal Petition No.5612 of 2020. Since both

these petitions arise out of crime No.205 of 2017 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 341, 420, 406, 504, 506 and

34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to common incident and

common charge sheet having been filed, they are taken up

together and considered by this common order.

2. Heard K.C.Pratheep, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1.

3. The facts in brief as projected by the prosecution are as

follows:

An attempt by the petitioners to take a blind man for a

spin has landed them in these proceedings.

4. The petitioners are owners of a residential building

bearing No.223 situated on the 10th Cross, 2nd Main

Maruthinagar, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Complainant/respondent

No.2 was their tenant. Tenancy between the petitioners and the

complainant dates back to 2004-05. The lease deed that they

had entered into was in operation up to 2010. Even after expiry

of the lease, the complainant continues to stay in the premises

with the consent of petitioners as there was a proposal to sell the

property by petitioners in favour of the complainant. It is,

therefore, the complainant continued to reside in the said

premises without any extension of lease agreement. Certain

transactions took place between the children of accused 1 and 3

and money is transferred from the account of the complainant to

the account of the children of the accused. It appears that when

the complainant informed that he would pay an amount of

Rs.60/- lakhs at a particular date at the time when the sale

transaction would take place, the petitioners represented to the

complainant that they are in need of urgent money and therefore

if the money is transferred to the account of their children the

sale could take place at a later date. On such statement made

by the petitioners, the complainant transferred certain amount

to the account of the children of the owner of the

property/accused No.4 and also a deed of agreement to sell was

kept ready which was to be executed on 20th April 2017. The

petitioners did not turn up to execute the said agreement of sale.

Later, the complainant comes to know that after having received

the amount as advance from the hands of the complainant, the

property itself was mortgaged to a Bank and on default in

payment, the secured creditor had issued notices to the

complainant to vacate the premises. It is at that juncture, the

complainant registered the subject complaint alleging offences

punishable under Sections 341, 420, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of

the IPC.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that criminal law is set in motion unnecessarily

notwithstanding the fact that the matter is purely civil in nature

as it involves an agreement between the parties which is alleged

to have been breached. It is also brought to the notice of this

Court that the complainant has also instituted a suit for

recovery of money that he has paid in furtherance of the alleged

agreement of sale and it is submission of the learned counsel

that further proceedings in the criminal case should not be

permitted to continue against the petitioners as it would be

contrary to what the Apex Court held in the cases of:

(i) RANDHEER SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (2021 SCC OnLine SC 942)

(ii) MITESH KUMAR J. SHA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (2021 SCC OnLine SC 976)

(iii) VINOD NATESAN V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ((2019)2 SCC 401)

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would

vehemently refute the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and contends that negotiation for

sale of the property was established in favour of the complainant

and advance amounts were also taken by the petitioners for

such sale with a dishonest intention. The complainant was

induced into this transaction by the petitioners and, therefore,

she would submit that it is a matter of trail for the petitioners to

come out clean.

7. The 2nd respondent/complainant is served

unrepresented.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The entire

issue springs from the complaint registered by the 2nd

respondent and is, therefore, required to be noticed. It reads:

        "EªÀjAzÀ                                           ¢£ÁAPÀ:26-07-2017
        PÉ.J¸ï.C±ÉÆÃPÀ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï PÉ.«.²æäªÁ¸À£ï
        £ÀA.223, 1£Éà ªÀĺÀr, 2£Éà C¯ÁmÉäAmï
        2£Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, 10£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ,
        ªÀiÁgÀÄw£ÀUÀgÀ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ
        ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 064.
        9538421333.

        gÀªÀjUÉ:
        oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
        AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ
        AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ
        ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 064.

        ¸Áé«Ä,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgÀgÁd£ï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ªÀÄĤ¸Áé«Ä, ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w PÉÆÃA ¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï,

ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÁwðPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉêÀÄAvï, ²æÃ.P˲Pï gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀªÁV £À«ÄäAzÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ ¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.

---

PÉ.J¸ï.C±ÉÆÃPÀ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÄgÀÄqÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß JgÀqÀÄ PÀtÄÚUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁt¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§ F ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è 24-03-2010 jAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24-03-2010 gÀAzÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w EªÀjUÉ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.223, 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀÆ.2,75,000/-(JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ J¥ÀàvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀUÀzÁV ¤Ãr ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ.

vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-02-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®wAiÀĪÀgÀÄ MmÁÖgÉ PÀlÖqÀ CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.233, 1200 ZÀzÀgÀ CrUÀ¼À ¸ÉÊn£À°è PÀnÖgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀA.223©, 472.5 ZÀzÀgÀ CrUÀ¼À°è PÀnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 36 CrUÀ¼À Dgï.¹.¹. PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀÆ.90,00,000/-(vÉÆA§vÀÄÛ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ.

CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ°è ºÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zɪÀÅ. DzÀgÉ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀÄvÁðV ºÀtzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ gÀÆ.30,00,000/-(ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥ÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÁwðPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ.ºÉêÀÄAvï P˲Pï ºÉ¸Àj£À°è PÉÆr C£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉ, ºÉÃVzÀÝgÀÆ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÁ¸À¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà E¢ÝÃj ¤ªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¨sÀAiÀĪÀÇ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ºÉýzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅ 2012-13£Éà ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ ¸Á°£À°è ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï, ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÁwðPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ.ºÉêÀÄAvï P˲Pï ºÉ¸Àj£À°è L.r.©.L ¨ÁåAPï ZÉPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¤Ãr ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹zɪÀÅ. DzÀgÉ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ £À«ÄäAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀzÉà £ÀªÀÄä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀªÁt ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðPÉÌ ¹UÀzÉ vÀ¯É ªÀÄgɹPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. ºÀt ¤ÃrzÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:22-02-2017 gÀAzÀÄ r.ºÉZï.J¥sï.J¯ï ¨ÁåAQ£À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ CqÀªÀiÁ£À £ÉÆÃnøï CAn¸À®Ä §AzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ wêÀæªÁV DvÀAPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁåAQ£ÀªÀgÀ §½ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQ£À°è CqÀªÀiÁ£À EnÖzÀÄÝ ¸Á®zÀ PÀAvÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AvÀÄ. ¨ÁåAQ£À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀªÉà £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®wAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¸À®Ä, CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ vÀÄvÁðV r.ºÉZï.J¥sï.J¯ï ¨ÁåAPï ºÉ¸Àj£À°è gÀÆ.1,50,000/-(MAzÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆî£ÀÄß vÀqÉ»r¬Äj. £ÁªÀÅ RArvÀªÁVAiÀÄÆ §AzÀÄ ±ÀÄzÀÞPÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅ CªÀgÀ ªÀAZÀ£É CjAiÀÄzÉà r.ºÉZï.J¥sï.J¯ï ¨ÁåAPï ºÉ¸Àj£À°è gÀÆ.50,000/-(LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÉPï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:22-02- 2017 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÆ.1,00,000/-(MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÉPï ¢£ÁAPÀ:28.02.2017 gÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzɪÀÅ. gÀÆ.50,000/-(LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ) ZÉPï£ÀÄß r.ºÉZï.J¥sï.J¯ï. ¨ÁåAQ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀ¢¹PÉÆAqÀÄ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÁUÀÆå ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï, ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä §gÀzÉà EzÁÝUÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀAZÀ£ÉÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀĽªÀ£ÀÄß CjvÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ gÀÆ.1,00,000/-(MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ L.r.©.L ¨ÁåAQ£À°è ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß vÀqÉ»rzɪÀÅ. ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉ½zÀAvÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÉà £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý gÀÆ.35,00,000/-(ªÀÄƪÀvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä ºÉýzÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ CzÀPÀÆÌ M¦à CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀiÁgÁl PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹zɪÀÅ.

F J¯Áè WÀl£ÉUÀ½AzÀ PÉ.J¸ï.C±ÉÆÃPÀ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ wêÀæ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ MvÀÛqÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁV ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¨Áj ¦.JA.J¯ï. ¸ÉÆÖçÃPïUÉ M¼ÀUÁV D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¨Áj zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, NqÁqÀ®Ä DUÀzÀAvÀºÀ ¥Àj¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ, ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ°è EzÉÝãÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÀUÀAqÀ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï, ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÆß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÀtªÀ£ÀÆß »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¹ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:10-06-2017gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ 1-30gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è P˲Pï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 jAzÀ 12 d£ÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ £ÀÄVÎ ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁgÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£À ²æÃ.¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«ÄAiÀÄ ¥ÀÆeÉ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÄgÀÄqÀ£ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼À fêÀ£ÉÆÃ¥ÁAiÀÄPÉÌ PÀµÀÖªÁVzÉ ²æÃ.n.JA.¸ÀÄAzÀgïgÁd£ï, ²æêÀÄw.PÉ.J¸ï.ªÀiÁ®w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÀA©¹ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀrzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀzÉà CxÀªÁ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¤ÃqÀzÉ £À£Àß DgÉÆUÀåzÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CjvÀÄ £ÀA©¹ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ CAUÀ«PÀ®£ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ NqÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁV®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß JgÀqÀÄ PÀtÄÚUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ PÁtzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D±ÀPÀÛ£ÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß zsÀªÀÄð¥Àwß £À£Àß DgÉÊPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÁ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ J¯Áè ªÁådåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀj ²æêÀÄw PÉ.J¸ï.±ÀgÁªÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ¸ÀªÀÄäw EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DzÀ PÁgÀt F £Á®égÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,

¸À»/-

PÉ.J¸ï.C±ÉÆÃPï ¥ÀgÀªÁV ²æêÀÄw PÉ.J¸ï.±ÀgÁªÀw."

The complainant in the complaint clearly narrates that

there was assurance from the petitioners that they would part

with the property by entering into a sale transaction with the

complainant for which Rs.30 lakhs was paid by cash and several

amounts were transferred to the account of the children of

accused Nos. 1 and 2 as narrated in the complaint. The police,

after investigation, have filed a charge sheet and column No.7 of

the charge sheet reads as follows:

"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw£ÀUÀgÀ 2£Éà ªÉÄÊ£ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.-233 PÁ®A £ÀA-2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J1, J2, J3, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J4 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀjAzÀ gÀÆ2,75,000/- gÀÆ UÀ½UÉ ¨ÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ¥ÀrzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24/03/2010 jAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ-21/02/2012gÀAzÀÄ J1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J2 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA-233gÀ°èAiÀÄ 1200 ZÀzÀÄgÀ CrUÀ¼À°ègÀĪÀ Dgï¹¹ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-7 gÀªÀgÄÀ PÀĽvÀÄ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁr MlÄÖ 90,00,000/-gÀÆUÀ½UÉ wêÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ UÉ vÀÄvÁðV ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FUÀ 30,00,000/- gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ J-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-4 DgÉÆævÀgÀ SÁvÉUÉ ºÁQ £ÁªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ PÉýPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1, J2, J3, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J4 DgÉÆævÀjUÉ £ÀUÀzÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉPï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:22/02/2017 gÀAzÀÄ r.ºÉZï.J¥sï.J¯ï ¨ÁåAPï £ÀªÀgÄÀ D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉÆÃnøï CAn¸À®Ä §A¢zÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë- 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ D ¨ÁåAPï£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁr ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆævÀjUÉ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ DgÉÆægÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï£ÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÀt PÀnÖ £ÁªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ w½¹ £ÀA©¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA© gÀAzÀÄ r.ºÉZï.J¥sï.J¯ï ¨ÁåAPïUÉ 50,000/-gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀnÖgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÀÆ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

¢£ÁAPÀ:10/06/2017 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 01.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J-4 DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 ¸ÁQë-2 ¸ÁQë-3 gÀªÀgÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀjUÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ PÉƯɪÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

PÁ®A £ÀA.2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ CªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/02/2012 jAzÀ 08/04/2013gÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÀUÀzÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉPï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ 35 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀzÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï PÉÆqÀzÉà PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæPÀÆÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀzÉà £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀªÉ¸ÀV J®ègÀÆ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ ºÉÆA¢ GzÉÝñÀ¥Æ À ªÀðPÀªÁV ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ CªÁZÀå±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÄÀ vÀÛzÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

The charge sheet also narrates various statements recorded by

the Police during investigation who are all witnesses to the

transaction between the parties and were residents of the same

building. Therefore, it cannot be doubted at this juncture that

there is no evidence of inducement and breach of trust against

the petitioners.

9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners and the

complainant both have registered two suits - one for recovery of

money by the complainant and the other for eviction of the

complainant from the premises. In the said civil suit filed by the

complainant seeking recovery of money entire payment of money

is quoted and it is germane to notice the same reading:

THROUGH CHEQUE:-

    Date   Cheque No.       Amount        Paid to      Paid by
21.2.2012  57789          1,00,000/-    Karthik      K.S.Ashok
17.3.2012  57790          3,00,000/-    Karthik      K.S.Ashok
28.4.2012  57792            82,500/-    Karthik      K.S.Ashok
07.06.2012 57794          2,25,000/-    Karthik      K.S.Ashok
16.7.2012  57265            50,000/-    Kaushik      Vasudha
                                                     A/c.
8.4.2013     74884          97,000/-    Karthik      K.S.Ashok
22.2.2017    145373         50,000/-    DHFL         K.S.Ashok
             Total        9,04,500/-         (A)


PAID BY CASH:-
      Date              Amount                     Paid to
11.3.2012                  1,50,000/-           K.S.Malathi
26.3.2012                  2,00,000/-             Karthik
26.4.2012                    17,500/-             Karthik
28.3.2013                  1,50,000/-             Karthik
8.4.2013                     53,000/-             Karthik
5.3.2014                   1,00,000/-           K.S.Malathi
6.6.2012                   1,70,000/-        T.M.Sundharrajan
27.8.2012                  3,30,000/-        T.M.Sundharrajan
                           9,47,282/-           And paid to
                     (Loan Taken from      T.M.Sudharrajan and
                   Souhardha Bank in            K.S.Malathi"
                          the name of
                           K.S.Ashok)

It is for this reason that the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would contend that it is a matter which is purely civil

in nature and this Court should not permit criminal proceedings

to continue and places reliance upon afore-quoted judgments.

There can be no qualm about the principles laid down in the

said judgments. Quoting paragraphs from the said judgments

would only add up to the pages. The issue in the case at hand is

with regard to offence punishable und Section 420, ingredients

of which are found in Section 415. Section 415 of the IPC reads

as follows:

"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."

Section 415 mandates that there should be a dishonest

intention of inducing a person to deliver any property to any

person. In the case at hand, the petitioners have misled with a

dishonest intention and prima facie induced the complainant to

part with certain amount of money on the assurance that they

would sell the property to him. These facts are clearly brought

out in the complaint and the result of investigation/final report.

Therefore, it is not a case where this Court could interfere with

the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

10. Insofar as the allegation punishable under Section 406

of the IPC is concerned which deals with criminal breach of

trust, the ingredients of which are found in Section 405 of the

IPC. For criminal breach of trust to be alleged there should be

entrustment of property. In the case at hand there is no

inducement on the complainant by the petitioners for the

complainant to allege that there has been criminal breach of

trust. Therefore, proceedings for the offence under Section 406

cannot be permitted to be continued against the petitioners.

11. The other offences are offences punishable under

Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The complaint itself narrates

that there has been inducement on the complainant by the

petitioners. The result of investigation also confirms the same.

Therefore, the petitioners will have to come out clean in a full

blown trial for the aforesaid offences.

12. It is trite law that merely because the issue is civil in

nature, the proceedings should not be quashed. The Apex Court

in the case of KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR V. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA1 has held as follows:

"5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 539] .

6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the

(2019) 14 SCC 350

threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] .

7. Relying upon the aforementioned judgments of this Court, Mr M.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the trial court by which process for summoning the accused was issued. He further submitted that the evaluation of the merits of the allegations made on either side cannot be resorted to at this stage.

8. Mr R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents 2 to 6 and 8 to 11 submitted that a proper evaluation of the material on record would disclose that the complaint is frivolous. He submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and the ingredients of the offences that are alleged against the respondent are not made out. By making the above statement, Mr Basant commended to this Court that there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the High Court.

9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged

against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

(Emphasis supplied)

Further, in the case of STATE OF M.P. V. YOGENDRA SINGH

JADON2, the Apex Court holds as follows:

"5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is made out or not at pre-trial stage. The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The manner in which loan was advanced without any proper documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be stated that other officials of the Bank have been charge-sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The charge under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to be read along with the offences under the Act to which the respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B IPC.

6. Consequently, we find that the order [Yogendra Singh Jadon v. State of M.P., CRR No. 260 of 2014, order dated 2-5-2016 (MP)] of the High Court quashing the charges against the respondents is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It shall be open to the respondents to take such other action as may be available to them in accordance with law."

(2020) 12 SCC 588

13. In the light of the afore-narrated facts and the

judgments of the Apex Court, except Section 406 of the IPC, the

complaint and the charge sheet prima facie meet all other

offences. Therefore, interfering with further proceedings in

exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is

unwarranted for the present.

14. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed in part.

(ii) Further proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC to be continued against the petitioners.

(iii) The offence under Section 406 of the IPC shall stand deleted from the array of charges.

(iv) The offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC shall be considered only against accused No.4.

(v) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of

consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other fora.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp CT:MJ