IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2OQST_7._
BEFORE J I I
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAwAD__ A I I
CRL.R. NO. 975 OF 2:058. " * V'
BETWEEN: "
1. SMT S RADHA
W/O.L.S.RAO, AGED 63 YEARS
2. SRI L S RAO, S/OI.LAKS|---IML}.NR'A_O_{;ATE,
AGED 73 YEARS,BO"Tlji"ARvE7 T
R/AT.NO.44A4,8TH C.ROSS,¥. 7 =
MAHALAKSHMT. LAYOUT; B.AN.fGALO RE--O7.
_ , _ PETITIONERS
(BY SR1 DTT,R;SBNDARE~SH~,I_ ADV;
1. STATE BY V\:":v\:(A:LIi<.4v_:'V.A'E__'POLICE
BAHGALORE;§--_=
2. 4;'A.SURESH_ANNE' COTTAGE,
" :\_I,O.2.B, 11N'D-MATH, PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE -- 560 003.
'A RESPONDENTS
. .(B"{°S.T{I»AI.R».A'JA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP FOR R1 AND
SR;"S.v:S'OBrA'AMANYA, ADV. FOR R2)
ik*
CRL. ZP FILED U/S482 CR.P,C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
I "'TH'E':PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
I"""PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) IN C.C.NO.493/2003
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC., DAVANAGERE., ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWII\EG:-
ORDER
The petitioners, who are arrairgned as avcctised Cr, I
No. 66/ 2005, facing charge for pTLi’ni:s:–iiapi’|OOe’:OIJ’njd:er
Section 420 IPC, have assa~i.T;éd,_%the” prosVeVc:;t’i’:o’n”‘wagjainst’~00
them.
2. The matter is..I:i’stedI__Va-fiei:«..goti..§e fsto respondents,
in response the ir_espo:_nd_ent”f\io.2 — compiaint has
fiied adetaileicis’Coitiht-er”–an~d Eea’rne’d Government Pleader Sri
Raja S{ibrRaman3Via:.,”‘r3ha.tV_LO’i’r.e:presents the first respondent —
State ._
fifireard the {earned counsei for petitioner and
“ie_a-r.ned'”i3’o$}_erOnrhent Pleader Sri Raja Subramanya Bhat.
The contextuai facts are:
By a report dated 26-03-2005 the respondent No.2
“”aileged that the petitioners herein had transacted with him
gU3i/
’33
to self the immovable property bearing No. 2916/E, IV Main,
Vijayanagar 2″” Stage, Bangalore-56O 040 for
consideration. The agreement resulted in
and a sum of Rs.-47,500/~ was paid by her 2.
as saie consideration. Despite I-.re.Cei’vying.'”–tihe’–r___sale
consideration they did notstr-a__nsfeVrs.Vthe
manner known to law and thé’ey_e:nt.:Vf;He made
repeated demand, Hioviiever, the
petitioners a conspired…toissuv-pAp.,ress’.h.’the’~”V”subsisting saie
agreement in::”fa§’;oiuVr No.2 and soid
the property-rtwo’:-aV:’§i’Vose’_r’eia:tive_’b’y nj.arne Suneeia Prituri.
itSubsedrueriit,.:”‘t.o:”_.saEe transaction when the
respondent°’i’io.’2 VaVp_pro_aCh’ed the petitioners they refused to
.—.,.,_parvi5s,j’3iivith: the l”}’;1V'(‘j’I’!€~’~,~-‘~’VaI’1d openly displayed their hostiiity.
:,’bo:na’fide that they wouid not return the money
he _i_o%dged”V’ai._report. The jurisdictionai potice registered a
”._case inC’3r. No. 66/2005 for the offence punishabie under
“:i:’§3e:citi’on 420 r/w 34 {PC After compietion of enquiry they
fiiéed charge sheet. The petitioners have sought to quash the
same.
air”
6. In support of the grounds urged the learned
counsel Sri D.R. Sundaresh would contend that privrriarfacie
no case is made out for the offence punis_h”a”ol.e’~..ui€d_ér.
Section 420 r/w 34 IPC or any other offence-..’irefersllpto.
list between the parties including;ini:ti.ativoi’i_of.”pros’e.cuVtlOri
against the petitioners by sthe res’p.oridentsV»”i’3xio.2lfor ti~.e’,
offence punishable under Sectiolriw«.138x of”tiie_u:N;:1. in CC.
No. 15100/2005. He–also”_V_refiers”~~.t’o,i.”exchange of notice
between the parties, reg-ar.dingV-.dispu.’te’ is only of civil
nature andghost”.attract:_4Va.ny”‘p’enal provision. The
jurisdict’io”na!.ygpoiicé:’nothiave registered a complaint
and everillif ‘the’y:’j”h.ad..V_:regis.tered a case they should not
proceed allgaiinstgtheiij; “..-brie submits that they approached
at theV”e’a»r!~i«e-st point of time and submits that now
is complete. Hence, they seek for
a’ppropri_ate”i_re:lief.
7}”? The learned Government Pleader vary fairly
°:.u’b:*hits that Complainant was received, registered,
“investigated and has culminated in filing of the charge
W
sheet. It is based on the statement of the respondent No.2,
who has furnished all details.
8. The question is whether in a SitUe3’t:i”Ofl.:lVl’l~tl.E”‘rtl;r’§S«
the action initiated against the petitioneprs if
received by the jurisdictional police
sheet is mis–use of process of
9. My attentio.n”:«–is of the
Apex Court in the case…of:._I:!\JEiliiitM’C;iiiliiiSij!{§OSWAMI & ANR
vs STATE 8{_”ci:i§:é;’v–P.eported in 2oo7 AIR
SCW ftielllnoticed that the report
submitted__ is a report under Section
154 jurisdictional police could not
hav4e”ca.lled.V i;ipon’1the Complainant to establish the case.
The ju.’ri.sd_iTc”ti.onal police officer has to register the report.
Tfilerefore,,,»V_thegrievance of the petitioners that report could
not’~~have been registered by the poiice officer is against the
~pr.o_visi’ons of Section 154 Cr.P.C. However, once report is
Krecefiived it is only the Investigating Officer who has to
W
(1
inquire about the truth of the allegations and file final report
as required under Section 173 Cr.i3>.C.
10. The report as lodged by the compiaiinty
two circumstances viz., (1) transac:tioh”betvi{een hirri and’:th”e
petitioners and (2) payment of *
to him the transaction was doctiyrriented ahd.xh¢_: yii’aVs”Ve’n’titled’V’
to seek enforcement o.f__the There”~is*’VEno other
allegations made in the had in
any way indul<;;:_ed:in- 'induce him or force
him to part alleges is that
there Therefore, there is a
distinction ii-etweeni'V'the'iib_r'e.ach of contract and criminal act.
;1'i._ No '-d.o'u'i:i't, it may be that the petitioners have
A'r'ecel.iVyedE""rfrio:ri'e_y and failed to return the amount. But the
Aa*'ii.eg'atyiAo"n§;-Ain complaint do not make out prima facie
_ case'~for,.__'the.A«:"oifence punishable under Section 419 IPC to
Viirnrite action under Section 420 IPC. The ailegations in the
i._coorn'p£–aint itself are too baid, vague and do not raise any
oiiiv
direct allegations on the petitioners of having indulged in
any act, which would constitute an offence of cheating.
12. Hence, I am satisfied that considering thefinjature
of allegations in the complaint itself and the m_.a:’te’r:–ia’ip~…ifeli:ejd« _
by the complaint to indict the petitioners _ti’.-ere:~.is’n:o«.case».
justifying to proceed against theZgaccpusevdu7fOh’ri..’t’he”ioiffgence
punishable under Section s’42.0 V
complaint’s right to recover theéarnotiignt fr’o’m:f_the pfietitioners
and any other right in re.l_aiioné._to;_trla”n»sa.ction are saved.
13. Accordivrlglyi,” Vileftitiovri if isllowed. The
impugned ordeA’f5isVVciVuashed’;”‘-Proceedings against petitioners
are dropped. i.LibertVy5is to respondent No.2 to
recovi;r’any an1o»u,r_it’ in accordance with law.
sd/4-=
VKA judge
7.__i-:b