AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent though served not present nor represented by any Counsel. The present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No. 145/2012 on the file of Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad registered on 08.10.2012 for the offence u/s 420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.
The brief facts that emanate from the records are that, the respondent No. 2 herein claimed that the petitioners have executed an agreement on 30.05.2012 agreeing to sell some landed property bearing its CTS No. 168/1A1-B2 measuring 0.05 guntas in favour of the respondent No. 2, which fact has been denied by the petitioners herein. In this regard, it appears the dispute arose between the parties. The petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 183/2012, (a plaint copy is produced before the Court) against the 2nd respondent and others for grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which is more fully described above. Thereafter, as the respondent No. 2 did not desist himself from interfering with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners also filed a complaint before the Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad on 03.08.2012 apprehending attack by the respondent No. 2 and others and also sought for protection from the said Police. Thereafter, it is seen that through their Advocate the petitioners also got issued a notice on 21.08.2012 alleging that the respondent. No. 2 has created some fake document, agreement for sale, in order to grab the property of the petitioners and also bringing to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 2 has been threatening the petitioners by virtue of the alleged disputed documents claiming himself as the agreement holder of the said property. As the matter stands thus, the respondent No. 2 herein has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 480/2013 for permanent injunction in respect of the same property against the petitioners The above said factual aspects show that the parties are fighting against each other in respect of some alleged agreement V between them.
In this background, it is alleged that on 08.10.2012 the respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint before the Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad making certain allegations. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police have registered a Crime in No. 145/2012, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners.
On perusal of the entire materials on record, the Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint discloses any offence as such against the petitioners in order to permit the continuation of the prosecution against these petitioners. Even otherwise, the Court has to ascertain whether the said complaint is filed as a counter blast to the other civil proceedings pending between the parties and also to find out whether the nature of transaction between the parties and the dispute existing between the parties is purely civil in nature and the respondent No. 2 has converted the same into a criminal proceedings.
On meticulous perusal of the complaint dated 08.10.2012, it discloses that the respondent No. 2 alleges that the petitioners have agreed to sell their property in favour of respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- and in fact, received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as advance and in respect of the same they have executed an agreement of sale dated 30.05.2012 before the Notary Public. In spite of repeated requests and demands they did not execute any sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, he filed a complaint specifically stating that the petitioners are evading themselves from executing a registered sale deed and thereby wanted to cheat the respondent No. 2. Except the word ''cheating'' mentioned in the complaint, nothing is there in the complaint to show that what exactly the attitude of the petitioners to defraud the respondent No. 2. Merely mentioning one word that the petitioners have not executed the sale deed in order to cheat the respondent No. 2 is not sufficient to draw any inference that the complaint averments constitute any offence against the petitioners. In order to attract the provision u/s 420 of I.P.C., there should be some averments in the complaint to the effect that the petitioners by deceiving the respondent No. 2 fraudulently or dishonestly induced the respondent No. 2 to enter into any agreement of sale with an intention not to execute the sale deed later and thereby intentionally induced the respondent No. 2 to do some act which caused damage or harm to the respondent No. 2. If these ingredients are absent in the complaint then it cannot be said that the complaint is maintainable. Even strictly speaking, the ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. need not be verbatim incorporated into the complaint, but on overall reading of the complaint, atleast it should disclose broadly some offence was being committed by the petitioners. But, absolutely there is no mention as to how the conduct of the petitioners amounts to cheating. Therefore, in my opinion, on reading of the complaint itself does not discloses any offence, that such complaint cannot be continued in this regard.
It is worth to note a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, :
Criminal Procedure Code, Sec. 482 Criminal proceedings if abuse of process, issue really being only a civil dispute, mere existence of civil dispute would not by itself alter status of allegations constituting criminal offence to the quashment of criminal proceedings, can be made. While the criminal intent and liability under the Criminal law is not established.
The continuation of the criminal prosecution should be permitted only in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no abuse of process of law. In this particular case, as I have already referred to, even translating the complaint averments into evidence that will not disclose any commission of the offence and it will not constitute the ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the petitioners have made out a good ground for quashing of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the following Order is passed:
The petition is allowed. The complaint lodged in Crime No. 145/2012 for the offence u/s 420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. pending on the file of Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad and all further proceedings that would have taken by virtue of the said registration of the case are hereby quashed.