High Court Karnataka High Court

Eon Auto Industries (P) Ltd vs The Taluka Magistrate on 7 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Eon Auto Industries (P) Ltd vs The Taluka Magistrate on 7 October, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT CF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 7"' day of October, 2089
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

Criminal Petition 2761 / 2008

Between:

Eon Auto Industries (P) Ltd
Regd.Off: New Delhi

Local Off: Flat # 002, # 245
Eden Hall, Defence Colony
80 Ft. Road, Indiranagar
Bangalore 38

By its Authorised Signatory
Mr Naveel Singla, 40 yrs
S/0 J K Singla Petitioner

(By Sri S Ganesh Shenoy, Adv.)
And:

1. Taluka Magistrate
Bangalore East Taluk
K R Puram
Bangalore

2 Sri B Nachaiah Chettiappe
S/o M N Chettiappa
# 72, Cunningham Road
Civil Station, Bangalore

3 Mr Srinivas S/o late Narasimhiah
52 yrs, R/a Seethargigifiialaya



Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post
Bangalore 560 048 Respondents

(By Sri Honnappa, GP for R1;

Chalapathy & Srinivas, Adv. for R2;
Sri C H Jadhav, Adv. for R3)

This Criminal Petition is filed under S.482 of the Cr.PC praying to
quash the proceedings in No. AGCR l37/2007-08 dated 28.2.2008 ~ annexure
H, etc.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court
made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in No. AG CR

137/2007-2008 dated 28.2.2008 initiated by the l” respondent and to set aside

the order passed by the Fast Track Court III, Bangalore in Rev.Ptn.

250l0/2008 and 250l4/2008.

Petitioner is said to have purchased the property from the 3″]

respondent who in turn had purchased the property from the 2″” respondent. It
appears there is a dispute between the original vendor and his predecessor. In

that regard, the Tahsildar is said to have initiated proceedings under S.145 of

/
f

the Cr.PC. E?”

However, according to the petitioner, he is a bonafide purchaser for
value from the 3′” respondent. Also, a civil suit has been filed by the rival
claimant Claiming property alleging to have succeeded to it on the basis of the

Will.

It appears matter has been seized by the Civil Court as to the rival
contentions. More over, except specific dispute between the parties, there is
no question of disturbance of peace or law and order for initiation of
proceedings by the Tahsildar under S.l45, Cr.PC. Parties are bound by the
orders of the Civil Court and the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar much

less the order passed in Revision are totally unwarranted.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. lmpugned proceedings pending
before the Taluk Executive Magistrate and the order passed in Revision by the

Fast Track Court are quashed.

An