MS. SONAM MISHRA @ v. KRISHNA

2. MR. SHAIK ABDUL REHAMAN S/O SHAIK BAHADDUR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.35, OLD NO 6/2 3RD CROSS BANASWADI RAILWAY STATION VIVEKANAND NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 033. (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR SRI NISHAD S.K, ADV., FOR R-2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BY CR.NO.420/2022 PULAKESHINAGAR P.S., AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.506,34,504,420,448,465,468,471,354 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A) BEFORE THE 11TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU. REGISTERED IN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner herein in Crime No.420/2022 registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengalury City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 420, 448, 465, 468, 471, 354 IPC, which is now pending before the Court of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.420/2022 was registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner herein and another for the aforesaid offences on the complaint of Shaik Abdul Rehaman S/o Shaik Bahaddur which was lodged on 22.12.2022. In the complaint, it is averred that the apartment bearing No.PH-001 situated at No.43/3, Davis Road, Richards Town, Bengaluru, was purchased by the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 complainant on 17.01.2022 from Smt. Sumera Tabsum W/o Imran Hussain under a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. Eversince then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the revenue records were also transferred in his name. The petitioner herein allegedly had created a fraudulent agreement for sale in respect of the said property and she had filed a suit in O.S.No.265/2022 before the jurisdictional Civil Court in Bengaluru and in the said suit, her application for temporary injunction was rejected on

31.11.2022. Inspite of the same, on 20.12.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., petitioner allegedly broke open the lock of the aforesaid property and trespassed into the said property and when the same was questioned, petitioner and another by name Shahabaj Pasha abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and Smt. Ishrath Fathima who was alongwith the complainant was assaulted and her modesty was outraged. It is also alleged that the accused are attempting to sell the aforesaid property. It is in this background the complaint was lodged on 22.12.2022 which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.420/2022 by Pulakeshinagar Police - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 Station, Bengaluru City. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the property in question on 16.10.2018 and based on the said agreement for sale, she has filed a suit in O.S.No.265/2022. Though the Trial Court has not granted an ad interim order of temporary injunction, this Court in MFA.No.7785/2022 having appreciated that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the apartment, has granted an interim order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner on 22.12.2022. He submits that the complaint is filed subsequently, only to harass and coerce the petitioner who is a lady.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that merely for the reason that there is a civil case pending, there cannot be any bar for entertaining a criminal complaint when the contents of the complaint prima facie attract the alleged offences. He submits that pendency of civil case has nothing to do with the incident in question. He submits that the petitioner has created the agreement for sale and the same is - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 evident from the material on record. He submits that respondent no.2 is the absolute owner of the property in question.

6. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the apartment bearing No.PH-001 situated at No.43/3, Davis Road, Richards Town, Bengaluru, with Smt. Naaz Parveen and Smt. Isra Tarannum. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.265/2022 before the jurisdictional civil court seeking specific performance of the said agreement dated 16.10.2018. This Court in MFA.No.7785/2022 has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner appreciating the fact that she is in possession and enjoyment of the apartment in question. The said order is passed on 22.12.2022. The complaint which has resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.420/2022 is dated 22.12.2022 and it is stated that the said complaint is filed before the police at 10.00 a.m. on

22.12.2022. The alleged incident had taken place on

20.12.2022 in the apartment in question. There is a delay of two days in filing the complaint. In addition to the same, the perusal of FIR would reflect that the FIR had reached the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 jurisdictional Court of Magistrate only on 23.12.2022 at 11.00 a.m. Therefore, the very filing of complaint before the Police Station on 22.12.2022 at 10.00 a.m. becomes doubtful. There is a delay of more than 24 hours in forwarding FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Prima facie, it appears that after this Court had granted an order of temporary injunction in MFA.No.7785/2022, the police complaint is filed subsequently.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that only to coerce the petitioner who is a lady, the police complaint is filed. I find some force in the said contention addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

8. In the complaint, it is averred that the petitioner has trespassed into the property. The said averment appears to be false for the simple reason that this Court has granted interim order of temporary injunction appreciating the fact that petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the apartment in question. Further, the incident is alleged to have taken place on

20.12.2022 and the complaint is allegedly lodged on

22.12.2022. There is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The complaint has reached the Court of Magistrate - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 only on 23.12.2022. There is a delay of more than 24 hours in forwarding FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the allegation of trespass in the complaint is baseless.

9. That apart, in the complaint it is averred that petitioner herein allegedly had created a fraudulent agreement for sale in respect of the property in dispute. Since the petitioner herein has already filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale before the jurisdictional civil court, the allegation of fraud would become the matter of trial before the civil court in the pending suit.

10. Under the aforesaid factual circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein would amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order:

11. Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.420/2022 registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengalury City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 420, 448, 465, 468, 471, 354 IPC, which is now pending before the Court of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9336 CRL.P No. 1079 of 2023 Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. KK SD/- JUDGE