Karnataka High Court
G Anitha W/O Dr.K.L. Govinda Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8527
CRL.P No. 101348 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101348 OF 2020 (482)
BETWEEN:
DR. G. ANITHA W/O DR. K. L. GOVINDA REDDY,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR,
R/O. DOOR NO.54/B, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI-583101,
AND ALSO ANJANA DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,
GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, SRI.S.S.BETURMATH & SRI.S.A.SONDUR, ADVS.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRUCEPET STATION, BALLARI,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
VISHAL
NINGAPPA 2. SHABIRA KHATUN W/O ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER,
PATTIHAL BEHIND M G BROTHERS, VISHAL NAGAR,
Digitally signed by ANATHPUR ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
VISHAL NINGAPPA ... RESPONDENTS
PATTIHAL (BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
Date: 2023.08.10
11:35:56 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND TO QUASH
THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED AT BRUCEPET POLICE
STATION BALLARI IN CRIME NO.123/2020 REGISTERED FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 420, 468, 471, 120B
AND 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BALLARI AND INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION IN SO FAR AS THIS
PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.14 CONCERNED.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8527
CRL.P No. 101348 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.14 is before this Court
calling in question the registration of crime in Crime
No.123/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 417,
420, 468, 471, 120B and Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil
appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the
respondent.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The complainant institutes a suit in O.S.
No.128/2008 for partition and separate possession against
accused Nos.1 to 13 before the concerned Court. This suit
is decreed on 01.07.2010. Final Decree Proceedings are
taken up for drawing up of final decree and in the mean
time, a compromise petition is filed before the concerned
Court, both by the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 13.
Based upon the said compromise, the Final Decree
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8527
CRL.P No. 101348 of 2020
Proceedings are decreed / closed. Later, it transpires that
execution petition, in E.P. No.122/2015 which was filed for
recovery of the decreed amount is also withdrawn. The
petitioner is nowhere in the picture in all these
proceedings. Pursuant to a sale deed executed by accused
Nos.1 to 13, the petitioner comes into picture after its
purchase on 08.07.2020. Dispute arose between the
complainant and accused Nos.1 to 13 with regard to the
property that was sold to the petitioner. The dispute then
leads the complainant to register a crime in Crime
No.123/2020 for the afore-quoted offences. Registration of
the crime is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the
subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri.K.L.Patil would submit that the petitioner is bona fide
purchaser from the hands of accused Nos.1 to 13 and if
there is a dispute between the accused Nos.1 to 13 and
the complainant, the petitioner cannot be dragged into
these proceedings for no fault of his.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8527
CRL.P No. 101348 of 2020
5. The learned HCGP would however refute the
submissions to contend that it is a matter of trial for the
petitioner to come out clean.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective counsel and have
perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the issue lies in a
narrow compass. The link in the chain of events is as
narrated hereinabove and are all a matter of record. The
allegation against the petitioner as found in the complaint
runs into one sentence. The sentence reads as follows:
"Document No.3441/2020-21 gÀAvÉ ªÉÄïÉ
vÉÆÃj¹zÀ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀARå 14 f. C¤vÁ gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr ªÉÆøÀ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÁPÁµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è
¨ÁQ¬ÄzÀÄÝ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ZÉPï gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀºÀ £ÉÆÃr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
8. It is the allegation that the petitioner has
purchased the property from accused Nos.1 to 13 and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8527
CRL.P No. 101348 of 2020
therefore she is arrayed as accused No.14. If there is a
dispute between the complainant and the other accused
i.e., accused Nos.1 to 13, it is for them to sort out their
differences. The petitioner who is a bona fide purchaser
from the hands of accused Nos.1 to 13, pursuant to the
Final Decree Proceedings cannot be seen to be hauled into
the web of crime that too for the afore-quoted offences.
9. If the teeth of the aforesaid facts when the
issue is purely between the complainant and the accused
Nos.1 to 13 and the above being seemingly civil in nature
permitting further investigation to continue against the
petitioner would run foul of plethora of judgments
rendered by the Apex Court on the issue. Therefore, it
becomes a fit case where this Court has to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obliterate the
registration of crime against the petitioner - accused
No.14, failing which it would become an abuse of process
of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8527
CRL.P No. 101348 of 2020
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR and the complaint registered at
Brucepet Police Station, Ballari in Crime No.123/2020
insofar as the petitioner - accused No.14 stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/Ct:Bck
