(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P. DAROJI., ADVOCATE) v. MALLESHAPALLYA

SMT. H. INDIRA W/O SIDDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.5, ARAVINDA NAGAR, MYSORE CITY-572 103 (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P. DAROJI., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BY KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSORE-572 103, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

RAMA S. ACHARYA, W/O Y.S. ACHARYA, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE, R/AT NO.67, 17TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, B-BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR, MYSORE CITY-570 009 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRESENTLY R/AT NO.203, JAYA SAPPAYAR, 5TH MAIN, MALLESHAPALLYA, BANGALORE-560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1, SRI. K.SREEDHAR, ADV. FOR R-2.) - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28927 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2016 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2707/2015 IN CR.NO.145/2014 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETR. BY FILING THE CHARGE SHEET U/S 420 OF IPC BY THE KUVEMPUNAGAR P.S., THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA)

1. This petition is filed challenging initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 417 of IPC which has ultimately culminated in filing of charge sheet.

2. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent alleged that she had paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioner for the purchase of land bearing Sy.No.420 measuring 15 guntas situated at Naganahalli and despite several requests, she had neither concluded the transaction, nor returned the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28927 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2016 amount taken by her. It was also admitted in the very complaint that for the said transaction, Suresh and Mangala were the consenting witnesses.

The agreement upon which reliance is placed indicates that the property belonged to Suresh and his family members and on his behalf, the 2nd respondent was entering into an agreement.

In my view, since the petitioner’s claim over the property is on the basis of an agreement entered into with the owner Suresh, the question of initiating proceedings against the petitioner, who had only entered into an agreement on behalf of Suresh would not arise. The fact that the petitioner had indicated in the agreement that the property belonged to Suresh would also go to show that there is no element of cheating from the very inception. I am therefore of the view that there is no justification to continue the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is therefore quashed. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28927 CRL.P No. 9622 of 2016

The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54