Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Javeed Mallik vs State Of Karnataka By on 10 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
CRL.P No. 2034 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2034 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED JAVEED MALLIK,
S/O MOHAMMED JAFFER,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/AT VINOBHA ROAD,
NEAR BHARATH FLOOR MILL,
SAKALESHPUR,
HASSAN - 573 134
2. H. K. DWARAKANATH,
S/O H.T. KESHAVA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1715, HEMAVATHI HOSPITAL
RAOD, NORTHERN EXTN.,
HASSAN - 573 201
3. A.M.SURESH
S/O J. MYLAR,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
CHANDANA R/AT NO.24, KANASU NILAYA
BM
SADASHIVANAGARA,
Location:
High Court of HEMANTH BADAVANE,
Karnataka CHIKKAKONDAGULA,
TEJUR, HASSAN - 573 219
4. SHASHI KUMAR K.,
S/O KRISHANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT KYAMANAHALLI,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN - 573 165.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
CRL.P No. 2034 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. LOKESH S. N.
S/O LATE S M NAGARAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT KIREHALLI VILLAGE,
HALASULIGE,
SAKALESHAPURA TALUK,
HASSAN - 573 127
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SAKALESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SUJANA NITTUR,
S/O LATE N. JAISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT BRAMIN STREET,
HALAVASA NITTURU,
NO.415, 1ST CROSS, NGEF EAST,
BANGALORE - 560 056
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.32/2025
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 352, 351(2),
336(2), 336(3), 318(4), 318(2), 190 OF BNS OF SAKALESHPURA
TOWN POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DVN) AND CJM AT SAKALESHPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
CRL.P No. 2034 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:
"Wherefore, the petitioners above named most
respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
quash FIR in Crime No.32/2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 336(2), 336(3),
318(4), 318(2), 190 of BNS of Sakaleshpura Town Police
Station, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judte (Sr.Dvn)
and CJM at Sakaleshapura, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it
is the specific contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2
entered into a sale agreement dated 23.07.2019 with petitioner
No.1 which was notarized on 29.07.2019. It is contended that on
25.10.2019, respondent No.2 is said to have lodged the complaint
against petitioner No.1 and others, who were summoned before
the Police Authorities and their statements were recorded.
4. It is also pointed out on 20.02.2020, petitioner No.1
filed a suit in O.S.No.182/2019 for bare/perpetual injunction in
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
relation to the subject property. Respondent No.2 filed one more
suit in O.S.No.3/2020 on 12.03.2020 against respondent No.2 and
others, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that despite having filed a written
statement in the year 2020 to the aforesaid suit filed by petitioner
No.1, specifically contending that the sale agreement relied upon
by the petitioners was fabricated and concocted document out of
fraud and collusion by the petitioners, respondent No.2 has
belatedly filed the impugned complaint dated 24.01.2025 after
more than 5 years for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 352, 351(2), 336(2), 336(3), 318(4), 318(2), 190 of BNS,
which is impermissible in law and deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant submits that though it was contended in the written
statement that the sale agreement was fabricated and concocted,
it was only after collecting necessary material during the pendency
of the suit, respondent No.2 filed the impugned complaint based
on the additional material collected by him and as such, there is no
merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is
necessary to extract Annexure-B, which reads as under:
"UÉ:
DgÀPÀëPÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ,
¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ DgÀPÀëPÀ oÁuÉ,
¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ, ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ - 573 134.
EAzÀ:
¸ÀÄd£Á ¤lÆÖgÀÄ,
£ÀA.415, 1£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ,
J£ï.f.E.J¥sï ¥ÀƪÀð,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
Mobile: 9611625826
Email: [email protected]
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁzÀ PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CPÀæªÀĪÁV w¢ÝgÄÀ ªÀ E-¸ÁÖA¥ï ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀÄPÁÌV ¥ÁæxÀð£É.
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 33 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ
À j£À°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÄÀ ä ¥ÀƪÀðdgÀÄ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°è
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÄÀ gÀzÀ°è PÁ¦üvÆ
É Ãl ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è
ªÀÄ£É - ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ ºÉÆA¢zÉݪÅÀ . PÁ¯Á£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä ¥ÀƪÀðdgÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß «¨sÁUÀ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ CawªÀÄ
rQæ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-12-2014gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ.
¸ÀzÀj CawªÀÄ rQæ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÉÆß¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ £ÀªÀÄä
PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¨ÁæºäÀ tgÀ ©Ã¢, «£ÉÆèsÁ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÀ¼Éà SÁvÉ
£ÀA.774/695, ºÉƸÀ SÁvÉ £ÀA.822/r/741 gÀ°è GvÀÛgÀ-zÀQët 39 Cr,
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
¥ÀƪÀð - ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 56 Cr, MlÄÖ 2184 ZÀzÀgÀ Cr eÁUÀªÅÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ
§AzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÁåªÀ ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼ÄÀ
£ÀªÀÄVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÁUÀ¯Éà £ÀªÄÀ ä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÄÀ UÀw¹zÀÝjAzÀ, £Á£ÀÄ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ 2018 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÄÀ gÀzÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä
vÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ £Á«§âgÄÀ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÄÀ ¸ÉÃj dAn SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ.
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ »ÃVgÀĪÀ°è, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ rQæ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ F
ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £ÀªÄÀ UÉ §gÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÀªÄÀ ä ¥ÀƪÀðdgÀÄ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ
ªÁ¹ ªÀĺÀªÀizï eÁ¥sÀgï ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï eÁ«zï ªÀÄ°Pï
gÀªÀjUÉ ¨ÁrUÉ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è, £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ rQæ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §A¢gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÁªÀÅ rQæ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §AzÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À dAn SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀĺÀªÄÀ zï eÁ«zï ªÀÄ°Pï gÀ£ÄÀ ß ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr, ¸ÀzÀj
eÁUÀªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ
¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸À® ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÄÀ UÉ SÁ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ 2018 jAzÀ®Æ
PÉýPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ«®è.
2019 dįÉÊ 18 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ E-SÁvÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV
¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ J¯Áè CªÀ±åÀ PÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ Cfð¸À°è¹, ¥ÀÄ£ÀB 23
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 29 dįÉÊ 2019 £À°è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨És PÀbÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ®Æ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É SÁ°
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀĺÀªÀizï eÁ«zï ªÀÄ°Pï gÀ£ÄÀ ß PÉýzɪÅÀ . C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ DUÀ,
FºÀ SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÝÀ CªÀgÄÀ £ÀªÄÀ UÉ CªÁZÀå ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½AzÀ
¤A¢¹, SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹, £ÀªÄÀ UÉ ¸ÁPÀµÄÀ Ö d£ÀgÄÀ , gÁdQÃAiÀÄzÀªÀgɯÁè
¨ÉA§®«zÀÄÝ, £ÁªÀÅ SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è, F ¸ÀévÄÀ Û £ÁªÀÅ EµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ
ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÄÀ UÉà ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, ¸Àé®à ºÀtPÉÌ £ÀªÄÀ UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr,
E®èªÁzÀ°è ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÁªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÄÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ºÉÃUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀÆæ
¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀĺÀªÄÀ zï eÁ«zï ªÀÄ°Pï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ
PÀqÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÀÄA¢ ºÉzÀj¹ £ÀªÄÀ UÉ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ
¨sÀAiÀÄ©üÃvÀgÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, ¸ÁPÀµÄÀ Ö ¸À® AiÀiÁgÁåjAzÀ¯ÉÆÃ
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
¥sÉÆãï PÀgÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹ MvÁÛAiÀÄ¢AzÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ
ºÉzÀjPÉ - ¨ÉzÀjPÉ - ¤AzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ £ÉªÄÀ ä¢AiÉÄà E®èzÀAvÁV £ÁªÀÅ
¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV §AvÀÄ.
25 CPÉÆÖçgï 2019 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÄÀ gÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è
JgÀqÀÆ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgɹ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ, ªÀÄUÀªÄÀ zï eÁ«zï ªÀÄ°Pï
PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á d£À oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ, £Á£Éà CªÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ
¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖ¢ÝãÉAzÀÄ E£ïì¥ÉPÖÀgïUÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉýzÀgÄÀ .
23 dįÉÊ 2019 gÀAzÉà ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÁÝV ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ, E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï
gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀjUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀjºÀj¹PÉƽî JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.
£Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ¸ÁÖPï ºÉÆ°ØAUï PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉõÀ£ï (Authority
for E-stamp Paper Issual) «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV, CPÉÆÖçgï 3-2019 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß
ºÉ¸Àj£À°è AiÀiÁgÉÆà E-¸ÁÖA¥ï PÁUÀzÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ w½zÀÄ §AvÀÄ.
£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁVAiÀÄÆ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁ»AiÀÄÆ
®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÀĺÀªÄÀ zï eÁ«zï ªÀÄ°Pï ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°è ªÀQî ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ºÉZï.PÉ.zÁégÀPÀ£ÁxÀ gÀªÀgÀ
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°è £ÉÆÃlj ¥À©èPï DV PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ
J.JA. ¸ÀÄgÉñï, ªÀQîgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÄÀ gÀ vÁ®ÆèPï ©½PÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ
PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÄÀ gÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ QgÉúÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ
£ÁUÀgÁeï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀĺÀ PÉ.J¸ï. ¯ÉÆÃPÉñï gÀªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ MnÖUÉ
¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀĨÁ»gÀªÁV ¹ÜvÀ¸éÀwÛ£À CPÀæªÄÀ ªÁzÀ PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ
¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-07-2019PÉÌ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸À馅 ªÀiÁqÀwPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj
¹ÜgÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæPÀ ÌÉ £ÀªÄÀ äUÀ¼À UÀªÄÀ £ÀPÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÀAvÉ, £ÀªÀÄä
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà M¦àUÉ E®èzÉÃ, £À£Àß ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀiÁr, £À£Àß ¥sÆ
É ÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ £ÁªÀÅ E-SÁvÉUÉ PÉÆlÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ½AzÀ PÀzÄÀ Ý £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀiÁr, PÀæAiÀÄ
PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀæAiÀÄ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ E-¸ÁÖA¥ï
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
¥ÉÃ¥ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹, ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÉÆAzÀĪÀ
»Ã£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß CPÀæªÄÀ ªÁV w¢ÝgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ, E-
¸ÁÖA¥ï ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃmï £ÀA§gï IN-KA09933888385587R ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ 3
CPÉÆÖçgï 2019gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÄÀ gÀzÀ bÁ¥Á PÁUÀzÀ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è EµÀÆå
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉÝ. DzÀgÉ, F ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁt¹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÄÀ E-¸ÁÖA¥ï ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï £À
¸Ànð¦PÉÃmï £ÀA. IN-KA09933888385587R£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w¢Ý (tamper ªÀiÁr), 23 dįÉÊ 2019 gÀAzÉà EµÀÆå
DVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ®Ä (Fraud) ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ
PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®èzÉ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è, £À£Àß £ÀPÀ° ¸À»AiÉÆA¢UÉ
CªÀgÀªÀgÉà ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉÃ, ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°è ªÀQîgÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ
£ÉÆÃlj ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ J.JA.¸ÀÄgÉñÀæªÀgÆ
À ¸ÀºÁ, UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ
ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ µÀjÃPÁV, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03 CPÉÆÖçgï 2019 gÀAzÀÄ
ªÀÄÄzÀætªÁVgÀĪÀ E-¸ÁÖA¥ï PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀæwUÉ 23£Éà dįÉÊ 2019 JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî
PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀPÌÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀĨÁ»gÀªÁV £ÉÆÃlj ªÀiÁr PÉÆlÄÖ
ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj £ÉÆÃlj £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ F
ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ ¯ÉÆÃPÉñïgÀªÀgÆ
À ¸ÀºÀ
CPÀæªÀĪÁV ¸ÁQë ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ J®ègÀ GzÉÝñÀªÇÀ £ÀªÄÀ UÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ rQæ
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¹ÜgÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV CPÀæªÄÀ ªÁ» ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÉÃ
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÉÃUÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁzÀ, CPÀæªÄÀ ªÁzÀ PÀæAiÀÄ
M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀļÉî zÁªÁ ºÁQ
£À£ÀUÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ »A¸É - vÉÆAzÀgÉUÀ½AzÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄvÀÛ, PÉÆ¯É - ¨ÉzÀjPÉ,
C¥ÀºÀgÀtzÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ EvÁå¢UÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß §zÀÄPÀ£ÄÀ ß zÀħð®UÉƽ¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ®Æè §ºÀ¼À ºÉzÀjPÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀwð¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä°è CjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÉãÉAzÀgÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ
J¯Áè PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CPÀæªÄÀ ¢AzÀ bÁ¥Á (E-
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
¸ÁÖA¥ï) PÁUÀzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆAqÀÄ, £À£Àß ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀiÁr, £À£ßÀ
bÁAiÀiÁavÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ½AzÀ PÀzÄÀ Ý, zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹, PÀæAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ
PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ£Éà ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÀĺÀªÄÀ zï eÁªÀzï ªÀÄ°Pï ºÁUÀÆ
CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ºÉZï.PÉ.zÁégÀPÀ£Áxï, ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¨Á»gÀªÁV £ÉÆÃljgÀªÀgÀ £ÉÆÃAt ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÄÀ ªÀ J.JA. ¸ÀÄgÉñï,
ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÉÆÃlj-EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀĨÁ»gÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CPÀæªÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸ÁQë ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ ¯ÉÆÃPÉñï
gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄPÀæªÄÀ ªÀ£ÄÀ ß dgÀÄV¹, £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¹
PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV ¥ÁæxÀð£É.
EzÀgÀ PÀÆqÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀºÀ vÀªÀÄä
CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÁV ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÝÉ Ã£É.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
(¸ÀÄd£À ¤lÆÖgÀÄ)"
7. It is an undisputed fact that even prior to the aforesaid
complaint filed by respondent No.2, petitioner had instituted a suit
in O.S.No.3/2020 against respondent No.2 and others, which is
pending before the competent Civil Court.
8. The plaint averments in the said suit, reads as under:
THE PLAINT SUBMITTED UNDER ORDER VII
RULE 1 R/W SEC.26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEEDURE
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
1. The address of the parties given in the cause title
is correct for the purpose of service of process to be issued
by the Hon'ble court. The additional address of the plaintiff
for the purpose of service of all process is that of his
counsel Sri. H.K.Dwarakanath, No. 04, Sri Venkateshwara
Building, M.O.Office Road, Hassan - 573 201.
2. The suit schedule property is situated at
Sakaleshpura Town & it is house and site Property. The
same is described with its katha number, measurement &
boundaries at the end of this plaint under name & style suit
schedule property.
3. Defendants are the absolute owners and
possessors of suit schedule property. The documents
pertain to the suit property are standing in name 1"
defendant. Initially one Shanthamma filed original suit
O.S.No.127/1972 for the relief of partition and seprate
possession. The said suit was dismissed on 12.5.1974.
Later the same was questioned before the appellant court
in R.A. No. 29/1976. The appellate allowed the said appeal
in part. Later the said Judgement and decree was
questioned before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA
603/1977. The said RSA dismissed on 24.08.1987. Later
after lapse of 3 years from the date of disposal of RSA
case, FDP case No. 13/2013 was instituted to effect
partition in pursuant to the decree passed in R.A. 29/1976.
At that time suit schedule property came to the share of
defendants. Thus the defendants became absolute owner
and possessor of the suit schedule property. But, katha of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
the property standing in the name of 1st defendant only
with consent of other defendants.
4. During the lifetime of family members of
defendants gave the suit schedule house to one
Mahammed Jaffar who is none other than father of plaintiff
for a monthly rent. Since then he was residing in the suit
property. After his death plaintiff and his family members
continued as tenants in the said house i.e., suit schedule
property and pay the rent regularly without fail to the
defendants.
5. Defendants No. 1 came forward and offered the
plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property for the
reasons stated in the agreement of sale dated: 23.07.2019.
After negotiation the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit
schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 15, 00,000/-
which was the market value at that time. In this regard
defendant No. 1 executed a agreement of sale on
29.07.2019 in favour of plaintiff in front of the Notary public,
Hassan. Defendant no.1 executed and signed the sale
agreement on his behalf and agreed to bring other
defendants i.e., her mother and sister at the time of
registration. On the same day the defendant no.1 received
Rs.8,00,000/- towards earnest money by way of cash and
further agreed to execute the registered sale deed by
supply of all the documents pertains to the suit property.
Further defendant no. 1 agreed that her name is
N.Jayalakshmi @ Sujana Nittur. Both the names pertain to
her only.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
6. Now the katha of the suit property got changed by
1" defendant and Form 3 also came in her name. Now she
suppressed the same and kept mom and not intimated the
same to the plaintiff. After execution of registered sale
agreement, and after got changed the katha, the defendant
not come forward to execute the registered sale deed as
agreed by her. The plaintiff had approached the defendants
and requested them to execute the sale deed in respect of
suit property. But, the defendants took time to execute the
sale deed in favour of plaintiff as the documents were not
ready. After some time again the plaintiff approached the
defendants and requested them to execute the registered
sale deed in respect ect of suit property. But they were not
come forward to execute the registered sale deed and they
now show any interest to execute the sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff always ready and willing to
perform his part of work as per agreement. Though the
plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed
with respect to suit property, but the defendants being
adamants is not in a position to concede legitimate request
of the plaintiff. This is clear violation of the agreement of
sale by the defendants and thus they cheated the plaintiff.
7. Finally plaintiff issued a legal notice to the
defendants on 19.10.209 intimating them to execute the
registered sale deed in pursuant to the agreement sale
dated: 23.07.2019. After service of notice defendants sent
a false reply notice on 25.10.2019 to escape from the
liability. Even after service of notice, defendants not come
forward to execute the registered sale deed and they
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
violated the conditions of the agreement of sale and thus
they cheated this plaintiff and not acted as per the
agreement. This is illegal turn by the defendants. Further
the defendants are trying to sell the suit schedule property
to 3rd person even though they agreed to sell the same in
favour of plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit
for the relief of specific performance of contract & for
alternative relief for recovery of earnest money.
8. On the other hand, plaintiff filed one original suit in
number 0.5.182/19 the relief of permanent injunction
against the defendants as they are started interference with
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property
when plaintiff asked for registration of the property. The
plaintiff intends to withdraw the said suit after filing of this
suit. Copy of the same are placed herewith for kind perusal
of this Hon'ble Court.
9. The plaintiff is always and even now ready to get
sale deed registered in favour of him and he has eveready
to perform his part of contract in pursuant to the agreement
dated: 29.07.2019.
10. The relevant documents are produced for the
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. The same may be
marked as exhibits at the time of evidence on behalf of
plaintiff and suit may be decree in his favour.
11. The cause of action for the suit arose within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court when the defendants
violated the conditions of the sale agreement and even
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
after legal notice was served on defendants; the
defendants not come forward to execute the registered sale
deed in pursuant to the agreement of sale dated:
29.07.2019.
12. The plaintiff is filed the present suit for relief
specific performance of contract. The sale consideration
amount is Rs. 15, 00,000/- and Court Fee is paid as per
Sec. 40 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act
1958. Separate Valuation Slip is also filed.
13. PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE;-
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for a Judgment and
Decree in his favour and against defendants:-
Direct the defendants to execute the registered sale
deed in favour of plaintiff in pursuant to the agreement of
sale dated: 23.07.2019 executed on 29.07.2019 by
receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.
7,00,000/-,
Failing which this Hon'ble court pleased to appoint a
court commissioner to execute the registered sale deed in
favour of plaintiff after permitting him to deposit the balance
sale consideration amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the court,
The plaintiff by alternative relief prays this Hon'ble
court to direct the defendants to repay the earnest money
of Rs. 08, 00,000/- Paid by him under sale agreement with
18% interest p.a. from the date of agreement i.e. from
23.07.2019 till its realisation & for costs and such other
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and
equity.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
Mangalore tiled house with site property measuring
East - West 56 feet and South - North 39 feet having katha
number 822/D/741 situated at Ward No. 5, Sakaleshapura
Town bounded by:-
East: Private property
South: 5 feet common conservancy
North: Property of A.S. Narayanashetty and family"
9. In response to the same, respondent No.2 has filed
written statement as under:
Written Statement filed on behalf of the defendants
under Order VIII Rule 1, CPC
Defendants 1 to 3 beg to submit as follows:
1) Defendant-2 being aged lady staying at
Bengaluru and defendant-3 having been staying abroad,
are not in a position to attend the Hon'ble court on all
dates of hearing. Hence, they have executed a Special
Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1. Hence,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
defendant No.1, on her own behalf and also on behalf of
defendant Nos.2 and 3, is filing this written statement.
2) The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable
either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be
dismissed in limine.
3) The averments made in Para-2 of the plaint that
the suit schedule property is situated at Sakaleshpura
town and it is a house and site property with its katha
number, measurement and boundaries described in the
plaint Schedule are true, hence admitted.
4) The averments made in the para-3 of the plaint
that the defendants are the absolute owners and
possessors of the suit schedule property and that the
documents pertain to the suit property are standing in the
name of the 1st defendant and that initially Shanthamma
filed original suit in O.S.No.127/1972 for the relief of
partition and separate possession and that the said suit
was dismissed on 12-5-1974 and that late the same was
questioned before the appellate court in R.A.No.29/1976
and that the said appeal was allowed in part and that later
the said judgment and decree was questioned before the
High Court of Karnataka in RSA 603/1977 and that the
same came to be dismissed on 24-08-1987 and that later
after lapse of 3 years from the date of disposal of RSA,
FDP No. 13/2013 was instituted to effect partition
pursuant to the decree passed in R.A.No.29/1976 and
that at that time, the suit schedule property came to the
share of the defendants and thus the defendants became
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule
property, but the katha of the property was standing in the
name of the defendants only with the consent of the other
defendants, are all true and correct, hence admitted.
5) The averments made in para-4 of the plaint that
during the lifetime of the family members of the
defendants gave the suit schedule house to one
Mohammed Jaffar who is none other than the father of
the plaintiff for a monthly rent or that since then he was
residing in the suit property or that after his death, plaintiff
and his family members continued as tenants in the said
house, i.e., suit schedule property or that they paid the
rent regularly without fail to the defendants are all false
and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict
proof of the same.
6) The averments made in para-5 of the plaint that
defendant No.1 came forward and offered the plaintiff to
purchase the suit schedule property for the reasons
stated in the agreement of sale dated 23-07-2019 or that
after negotiation defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit
schedule property for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-
which was the market value at that time or that in that
regard, defendant no.1 executed an agreement of sale on
29-07-2019 in favour of the plaintiff in front of the Notary
Public, Hassan or that defendant No.1 executed and
signed the sale agreement on his behalf and agreed to
bring other defendants, i.e., her mother and sister at the
time of registration or that on the same day, defendant
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
No.1 received Rs.8,00,000/-towards earnest money by
way of cash and further agreed to execute the registered
sale deed by supply of all the documents pertains to the
suit property or that further defendant No.1 agreed that
her name is N.Jayalakshmi @ Sujana Nittur or that both
the names pertain to her only. are all false and incorrect,
hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the
same.
7) The averments made in para-6 of the plaint that
now the katha of the suit property got changed by the 1"
defendant and Form 3 also came in her name or that now
she suppressed the same and kept mum and did not
intimate the same to the plaintiff or that after the
execution of the registered sale agreement, and after got
changed the katha, the defendant did not come forward
to execute the registered sale deed as agreed by her or
that the plaintiff had approached the defendants and
requested them to execute the sale deed in respect of the
suit property, ba the defendants took time to execute the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as the documents were
not ready or that after some time again the plaintiff
approached the defendants and requested them to
execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit
property, but they were not come forward to execute the
registered sale deed or that now they do not show any
interest to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff,
but the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his
part of work as per agreement or that though the plaintiff
requested the defendants to execute the sale deed with
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
respect to the suit property, but the defendants being
adamant is not in a position to concede legitimate request
of the plaintiff or that this is clear violation of the
agreement of sale by the defendants or that thus they
cheated the plaintiff are all false and incorrect, hence
denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
8) The averments made in para-7 of the plaint that
finally the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants
on 19-10-209 intimating them to execute the registered
sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 23-07-
2019 or that after service of notice defendants sent a
false reply notice on 25-10-2019 to escape from the
liability or that even after service of notice, defendants not
come forward to execute the registered sale deed of that
they violated the conditions of the agreement of sale or
that thus they cheated the plaintiff and not acted as per
the agreement or that this is illegal turn by the defendants
or that further the defendants are trying to sell the suit
schedule property to third person even though they
agreed to sell the same in favour of plaintiff or that hence
the plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of specific
performance of contract and for alternative relief for
recovery of earnest money are all false and incorrect,
hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the
same.
9) The averments made in para-8 of the plaint that
on the other hand, plaintiff filed one original suit for the
relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
they started interference with peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property when plaintiff asked for
registration of the.. property or that the plaintiff intends to
withdraw the said suit after filing of this suit are all false
and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict
proof of the same.
10) The averments made in para-9 of the plaint
that the plaintiff is always and even now ready to get sale
deed registered in his favour and he has ever ready to
perform his part of contract pursuant to the agreement
dated 29-07-2019 are all false and incorrect, hence
denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
The case of the defendants is as under: -
11) The suit schedule property is the ancestral
property of the defendants. The defendants have got this
property in the family partition through Final Decree
Proceedings No.13/2013 on the file of the Addl. Civil
Judge & J.M.F.C., Hassan and they have got changed
the katha of the property to their joint names.
12) The defendants have filed an execution
petition seeking possession of the Schedule house which
has been allotted to the defendants in FDP No.13/2013
by the Hon'ble Court. On the basis of the Decree, the
defendants have also got changed the katha to their joint
names. In the said house, the plaintiff has been running a
flour mill by name Bharath Flour Mill. The plaintiff had
been illegally using the schedule property for running a
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
cycle shop and other commercial purposes, for which he
was not authorized and he has also caused extensive
damages to the house. To make the house fit for human
dwelling, it requires more than Rs.8,00,000/-. After the
defendants got the schedule property in the partition,
since they needed the house for their personal
occupation, several times the defendants requested the
plaintiff to vacate the house, but the plaintiff did not heed
to their requests. At the initial stage, the plaintiff went on
postponing the same under one pretext or the other.
Thereafter on 12-10-2019, the defendants went near the
schedule house and asked the plaintiff to vacate the mill
and hand over the possession to the defendants. Then,
he started to behave in a rude manner and challenged
stating that he will not vacate the house. He also abused
them in vulgar language and also threatened them with
dire consequences. In that regard, the 1ª defendant has
lodged a complaint in Sakaleshpura Town Police Station.
13) Later, to the utter surprise of the defendants,
the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants by
creating and concocting a false and bogus sale
agreement. The defendants do not have any knowledge
about the said sale agreement. The defendants have
never entered into any agreement of sale at any point of
time and they have not received any earnest money from
the plaintiff nor they have affixed their signature to any
document, much less sale agreement. However, on the
basis of the same fake document, he had filed a suit for
bare injunction against the defendants in
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
O.S.No.182/2019 before the Addl. Civil Judge,
Sakaleshpura, only to harass the defendants and protract
the illegal possession. The said Hon'ble Court has
rejected the plaint in O.S.No.182/2019 holding that the
same is not maintainable. The defendants have never
entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or with any
other person at any point of time.
Hence, the defendants have filed Execution
Petition No.21/2020 on 7-3. 2020 before the Addl. Civil
Judge, Hassan. Upon coming to know the same, the
plaintiff has filed the present suit on 13-3-2020 before this
Hon'ble Court by making a false claim by virtue of a fake
sale agreement.
14) Except the suit Schedule property, the
defendants do not have any other house property for their
accommodation. Hence, the defendants are in dire need
of the schedule house property in Sakaleshpura town.
15) The plaintiff has not come to the Court with
clean hands and he has filed this false, frivolous and
vexatious suit with a view to make wrongful gain for
himself.
16) There is no cause of action for the suit and the
one pleaded by the plaintiff is imaginary and created by
the plaintiff for the purpose of filing the present suit.
17) The other averments of the plaint which are
not specifically admitted or denied in the written
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
statement are hereby denied as false and incorrect and
the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. -
18) The defendants reserve their right to file
additional written statement in future in case of necessity
and under changed circumstances of the case.
19) Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs, in
the ends of justice."
10. The aforesaid suit is pending adjudication before the
competent Civil Court. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties, in
particular, written statement filed by respondent No.2 is sufficient
to come to conclusion that at the earliest point in time in 2020
itself, respondent No.2 specifically contended that sale agreement
relied upon by the petitioner is concocted and fabricated
document. It is also pertinent to note that the practicing advocate,
who represented is petitioner No.2, while petitioner No.3 is notary,
petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the witnesses to the said alleged sale
agreement. as stated supra in the written statement in 2020 itself,
the genuineness, legality and validity of the aforesaid sale
agreement relied upon by petitioner No.1 and involving the
petitioner Nos.2 to 5 has been specifically denied by respondent
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
No.2, who specifically contended that the same is concocted and
fabricated document. It is also pertinent to note that in the entire
impugned complaint, details alleged to have collected by
respondent No.2 during the time he filed the written statement in
2020 and till he filed the complaint are entirely absent.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
clear that the legality, validity, genuineness, correctness etc., of
the sale agreement relied upon by petitioner No.1 has been seized
and pending before the competent Civil Court from 2020 itself. In
the absence of any explanation whatsoever, question of
respondent No.2 filing the instant complaint belatedly after lapse of
almost five years would not arise in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case. In the case of Chanchalpati Das Vs.
State of West Bengal - 2023 SCC Online SC 650, the Apex
Court has held as under:
"16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the
complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in
Hashmukhlal D Vora and Anr., Vs. State Of Tamilnadu that
though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for
quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very
crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the
facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-
complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight
years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the
process of law to settle the personal scores with the
appellants, and that continuation of such malicious
prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of
process of law, more particularly when neither the
allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet,
disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The
allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a
conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding
against the appellants-accused."
12. As stated earlier, having filed the written statement in
the year 2020, the impugned complaint was filed in 2025 belatedly
without offering any explanation as to why complaint was being
lodged five years thereafter and in the light of the principles laid
down in Chanchalpati Das's case supra, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. It
is also pertinent to note that the evidence has already commenced
in the Civil suit and it is always open for the Civil Court to file the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
complaint and in the event, the Civil Court accepts the plea of
respondent No.2 and comes to the conclusion that the sale
agreement is concocted and fabricated document, it is always
open for the Civil court to give findings in this regard and file a
complaint to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 379 of
BNSS (340 of Cr.P.C). Viewed from this angle also, impugned
proceedings deserves to be quashed.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.32/2025 on
the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) and CJM,
Sakaleshapura, insofar as the petitioners are
concerned are hereby quashed.
iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are
kept open to be decided by the competent Civil court
and no opinion is expressed on the same.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19885
HC-KAR
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to file
appropriate application before the Trial Court urging
all contentions put forth in the present petition, which
shall be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
