Karnataka High Court
Mr. Gagan Kapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23365
CRL.P No. 726 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 726 OF 2018 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. GAGAN KAPUR
SON OF MR KANTI KAPUR
AGE: MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.124, IIND CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560024.
NOW RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT,
KEMPAPURA, HEBBALA, BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MARUTHI.S.H., FOR
SRI. J.HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KUMAR R BY SARJAPURA POLICE
Location:
HIGH POLICE, ATTIBELE CIRCLE
COURT OF BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR MOHAMMED
S/O YUKOOBSAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FORT STRET
SARJAPURA TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE-562125.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. M.H.HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23365
CRL.P No. 726 of 2018
THIS CRL.P 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 CRIME NO.239/2016 (P.C.R.NO.307/2012)
REGISTERED BY THE SARJAPURA POLICE STATION, ATTIBELE
CIRCLE, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Respondent No.2 herein presented a complaint under
Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("the
Cr.P.C.") against the petitioner and one Srinivasa Murthy
for offences under Section 120B, 420, 500 & 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC").
2. Respondent No.2 contended that he had purchased a
vacant site from the petitioner under a registered sale
deed of the year 2006, and the revenue entries were also
mutated in his favor, after which he alienated the same in
favour of one C.A.Padmawathi. He stated that accused
No.2--Srinivasa Murthy was a former partner of the
petitioner (accused No.1) in his real estate business and
Srinivasa Murthy had instituted a suit in O.S. No.529 of
NC: 2024:KHC:23365
2007 against the petitioner, respondent No.2,
C.A.Padmavathi and another pertaining to said property,
contending that the petitioner had executed an agreement
of sale in his favour. It was therefore his contention that
the petitioner herein and Srinivasa Murthy had entered
into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the innocent purchaser
for illegal gain and, therefore, they were liable to be
prosecuted for the offences aforementioned.
3. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by Srinivasa
Murthy seeking to enforce an agreement of sale in respect
of the property purchased by the complainant was
dismissed insofar as it related to the claim of specific
performance, and the Trial Court only directed the refund
of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest. This decree denying
the grant of specific performance was also confirmed in
Regular Appeal No.5066 of 2016 which was also dismissed
on 06.02.2020. It is stated that, as against this judgment
in regular appeal, a second appeal is pending.
NC: 2024:KHC:23365
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the claim of Srinivasa Murthy over the property in
question had been adjudicated upon and it has been held
that Srinivasa Murthy had no right over the same, the
proceedings that have been initiated for cheating cannot
be accepted merely because Srinivasa Murthy contended
that there is an agreement of sale in his favour.
5. In the light of the fact that, admittedly, a suit for
specific performance was filed by Srinivasa Murthy and his
claim for specific performance was dismissed with a
finding recorded by the Trial Court that the agreement
upon which Srinivasa Murthy placed reliance was only a
monetory transaction and it was not intended to be an
agreement of sale, it is clear that there is no justification
for a criminal prosecution.
6. The confirmation of this decree by the Appellate
Court also clearly indicates that the transaction between
Srinivasa Murthy and the petitioner herein was purely a
monetary transaction.
NC: 2024:KHC:23365
7. In the light of the above, in my view, there is no
justification to continue the proceedings as against the
petitioner. The petition is therefore allowed, and the
impugned proceedings against the petitioner shall stand
quashed.
8. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
