Criminal Petition No. 6063 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 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 3. SRI.L.C.VIJAY S/O CHANDRACHAR, KAKANURU VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka
Legal Reasoning
(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) …PETITIONERS - 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23 CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23 CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018 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. 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23 CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23 CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23 CRL.P No. 6063 of 2018 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:
Decision
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