Criminal Petition No. 9047 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1672 CRL.P No. 9047 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9047 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. T. RAYAPPA, S/O. LATE. R. THOMA SHETTY @ THOMAS .R., AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, PERMANENT R/O. BASAVANAGUDI, R.R. CAMP POST, P.G. PALYA VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST - 571 457. RESIDING PRESENTLY AT NO.307, 1ST-E-CROSS ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 086 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka 2. REV. FR. PAULAS .T
Legal Reasoning
S/O. LATE. THOMAS .R., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. ST. JUDE CHURCH, B.M. SRINAGARA, METAGAHALLI, MYSORE CITY - 570 016. PRESENTLY AT: ST. MARY'S CHURCH, GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 477 (BY SRI. CHIKKANAGOUDAR L.S., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HANUR POLICE STATION, KOLEGALA SUB DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA CIRCLE, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 439. KARNATAKA STATE. 2. SMT. ROSE MARY W/O. SRI. SANDYAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1672 CRL.P No. 9047 of 2021 R/AT NO.9, 1ST CROSS, RAMAMURTHY ROAD, KEERTHY LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU CITY - 560 084. (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR CRIME NO.157/2020 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.420 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIZ., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HANUR POLICE STATION, KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA CIRCLE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT IN KARNATAKA STATE AND PERUSE THEM. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.157/2020, by Hannur police station, Chamaraj Nagar District, on the file of the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kollegala, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1672 CRL.P No. 9047 of 2021 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 has filed the first information with respondent No.1-Police contending that accused No.2 being the owner of the landed property, appointed accused No.1 as his power of attorney holder by executing the registered power of attorney deed. Pursuant to the said power of attorney deed, accused Nos.1 and 2 induced the complainant to purchase the land in question at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the complainant and accused No.1 entered into an agreement for sale dated 03.10.2017. Complainant paid Rs.41,20,000/- by way of cheque and subsequently, paid Rs.19,55,000/- in installments. Accused No.1 agreed to execute the registered sale deed on 01.07.2018, but failed to execute the same and thereby committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The police registered the case and took up investigation. In the meantime, the accused are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. Since there was interim order of stay granted by this Court, investigation was not undertaken. 3. Heard Sri.Chikkanagoudar.L.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1672 CRL.P No. 9047 of 2021 Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. N.Gowtham Raghunath, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 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: R E A S O N S 5. Petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Respondent No.2 as complainant has filed the first information alleging that accused No.1 inspite of entering into an agreement for sale dated 03.10.2017 agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the landed properties and accepted the consideration amount, but failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. If the contention - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1672 CRL.P No. 9047 of 2021 of the informant as stated in the first information is to be accepted in toto, it amounts to breach of contract ie., breach of the conditions undertaken by the accused in the agreement for sale dated 03.10.2017. There is absolutely, no allegations whatsoever in the first information to invoke Section 420 of IPC. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 filed OS.12/2021 seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement dated 03.10.2017. This fact is not disputed, rather it is admitted and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the said suit is pending for consideration before the Trial Court. When prima-facie the transaction between the petitioners and the accused based on the agreement to sell dated 03.10.2017 and respondent No.2 has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that it will give rise to the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings is only to pressurize the petitioners for terms and it is in abuse of process of law. Hence, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1672 CRL.P No. 9047 of 2021 I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following;
Decision
ORDER The petition is allowed. The FIR registered in Cr.No.157/2020 of Hannur police station, Chamaraj Nagar District, on the file of the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kollegala, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of is hereby quashed. Parties are at liberty to prosecute the suit OS. No.12/2021 in accordance with law. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4