Karnataka High Court
Sri L S Chandrachar vs Sri S Neelakantappa on 6 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23
CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6063 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L S CHANDRACHAR
S/O SIDDACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
TUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526
2. DR. L.C.PRASANNA
S/O CHANDRACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ASST. PROFESSOR,
DNB ANATOMY DEPARTMENT,
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V
Location: high 3. SRI.L.C.VIJAY
court of S/O CHANDRACHAR,
karnataka
KAKANURU VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA B R., ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3;
V/O DATED 05.04.2024, PETITION AGAINST
PETITIONER NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23
CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018
AND:
1. SRI S NEELAKANTAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(A) SMT. SHANKARAMMA
W/O LATE S. NEELAKANTHAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/A KAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577523
1(B) SRI. SHASHIDHAR
S/O LATE S. NEELAKANTHAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/A KAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577523
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HOLALKERE POLICE STATION,
HOLALKERE,
CHITRADURGA - 577 526
BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A)&(B)
SMT. K. P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR NO.73/2018, ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE AND TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23
CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in PCR
No.73/2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Holalkere, are seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings registered for the offence under Sections 406
and 420 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1
as complainant filed PCR No.73/2018 against the
petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of
offences as stated above. It is the contention of
respondent No.1 - complainant that the petitioners
proclaimed that they are the absolute owners in
possession of the house property measuring 25' x 37' feet
and sold the same for a consideration amount of
Rs.3,28,000/- under the registered sale deed date
12.01.2011. The petitioners undertook to clear off any of
the claims in respect of the said property at their own
cost. However, the suit O.S.No.31/2011 came to be filed
by a third party against the petitioners and respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:23
No.1 for declaration of their title and also to declare that
the sale deed dated 12.01.2011 executed by the
petitioners is not binding on them. The suit came to be
decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2012.
Therefore, it is the contention of the complainant that the
petitioners have cheated him by executing the sale deed
for valid consideration. Therefore, requested the trial
court to take cognizance of the offences and to initiate
criminal action. The trial court referred the matter to
investigation under Section 168(3) of Cr.P.C. and criminal
proceedings in Cr.No.117/2018 of Holalkere Police Station
came to be registered. The petitioners being accused
Nos.1 to 3 are before this court seeking to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against them.
3. Heard Sri. Prasanna B. R., learned counsel for
the petitioners; Sri. R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for
the respondents No.1(a)&(b) and Smt. K.P.Yashodha,
learned HCGP for respondent No.2 - State. Perused the
materials on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:23
4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out
any grounds to allow the petition and to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against them?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
5. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1
- complainant in PCR No.73/2018 that the petitioners have
cheated him by executing the registered sale deed dated
12.01.2011, whereunder, respondent No.1 paid the
consideration amount of Rs.3,28,000/-. The petitioners
undertook to clear off any of the claims in respect of the
said property. But in spite of that, the suit
O.S.No.31/2011 filed by Smt. M. Kamalamma and others
came to be decreed declaring that the plaintiffs therein are
the absolute owners in possession of the schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:23
property and the sale deed dated 12.01.2011 is not
binding on them. Even though the petitioners undertook
to clear off any of the claims by the third parties, as per
the recitals found in the registered sale deed, they have
not contested the matter and thereby they have cheated
respondent No.1.
6. It is pertinent to note that neither the
petitioners nor respondent No.1 contested the suit in
O.S.No.31/2011. However, accused No.1 filed the written
statement before the trial court denying the contentions
taken by the plaintiffs in the said suit. The suit came to be
decreed vide judgment dated 18.12.2014. It is pertinent
to note that respondent No.1 herein who is arrayed as
defendant No.4 in the said suit, has never contested the
suit, even though appeared through his advocate. There
is no reason for respondent No.1 for not contesting the
suit.
7. As per the recitals found in the registered sale
deed, petitioners have undertaken to clear off any of the
NC: 2025:KHC:23
claims in respect of the property which is the subject-
matter of the sale deed. In view of such undertaking, the
petitioners may be liable to make good the loss, if any,
caused to respondent No.1, but by no stretch of
imagination, it could be said that the petitioners have
cheated respondent No.1 by executing the sale deed. But
admittedly, respondent No.1 has not initiated any civil
action against the petitioners seeking damages.
8. It is pertinent to note that there is no
allegations made against the petitioners to constitute the
offence either under Section 406 or under Section 420 of
the IPC. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 was unable
to convince the court as to how the act of the petitioners
in executing the sale deed and subsequently decreeing of
the suit O.S.No.31/2011 would amount to cheating.
Hence, I am of the opinion that there are no prima facie
materials to constitute the offence under Sections 406 and
420 of the IPC. Continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of due process
NC: 2025:KHC:23
of law. Hence I am of the opinion that the criminal
proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer
the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The Criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioners in PCR No.73/2018 on the file of the learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, for the offence
under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As.
do not survive for consideration and are accordingly
disposed off.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
RD
