AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No 3/2007 of Chikkajaala Police Station, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B R/W Section 34 of IPC.
The said case arises out of the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 before the Chikkajaala Police Station alleging that the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent have agreed to purchase 8 acres 02 guntas of land in Sy.No.52 in Bellahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, at the rate of Rs. 15,10,000/- per acre and at the time of agreement, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by the Petitioner as wall as the 2nd Respondent to the sellers of the said lands and an agreement was entered into between them. Subsequently, since the 2nd respondent did not come forward to purchase the land. A notice was issued on 07.06.2005 by the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent and all the vendors asking them to come forward and register the land, after receiving the amount in the proportion in which they have agreed to purchase the land from the landowners. However, since the same did not materialize, on 09.09.2005, the 2nd Respondent got entire land of & Acres 02 guntas registered in the name of his father by name Sri. Ismail Salt, The petitioner thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.2291/2006 on 25.09.2006 and on OS. 10.2006, the notice of the said civil case was served on Respondent No.2. On 03.01.2007 the 2nd Respondent fifed a complaint before the Chikkajaala police station and police in turn registered the same as Crime No.3/2007 and commenced investigation. It is the said case, which is sought to be quashed in this proceedings.
Heard Sri. N.R. Nagaraj learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ravi B. Naik learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri. Satish R. Giriji, learned HCGP for Respondent No. 1. The learned HCGP submits that in consequences of the stay order issued by this Court, further investigation in this case has not been carried out and hence the matter is at the stage of FIR itself. He further submits that inveatigation would be continued after the stay order is vacated. Sri N.R. Nagaraj Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the registration of the FIR is an abuse of process of law in that the 2nd respondent after failing in the Civil Court in not securing any order in his favour has taken the recourse to the criminal case and that the said case had been filed with malafide intention. He further submits that the issue between 1st petitioner and 2nd Respondent is very much in the civil court in O.S.No.2291/206 which is still pending and therefore the proceedings in the criminal case are unwarranted and hence he prays that the proceedings in Crime No.3/ 2007 may be quashed.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that the petitioner has approached this Court on 09.03.2007 whereas the FIR is registered on 03.01.2007 this without leaving any scope for the police to investigate into the matter. He further submits that the accused namely the petitioner has committed -an offence of cheating and also the offence of forgery in respect of the documents said to be the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.01.2005 and the signature in the said Memorandum of Understanding appearing that of the complainant namely the 2nd respondent is not of the 2nd respondent and that the same is forged by the petitioner. The police have referred the said document to the handwriting expert and that the handwriting expert in Bangalore has reported that the signature is genuine one. However the 2nd respondent disputed the report of the handwriting expert of F.S.L. Bangalore and has taken the same for further investigation by a handwriting expert at FSL., Hyderabad resuit of which are contrary to the findings of the FSL, Bangalore.
On a careful consideration of the entire materials produced by both the parties, it is seen that the investigation requires to be completed and in view of the fact that either the Court or the police have not found the petitioner guilty, this petitioner is premature. It is only if either the police filed a charge sheet or the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the petitioner gets the cause of action to challenge the said proceedings. The said stage has not yet reached in this matter and therefore the High Court would not interfere with the investigation conducted by the police or the enquiry held by the Magistrate in the pre-cognizance stage. In that view of the matter, this petition is liable to be dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the findings either of the police or the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. With these observations petition is disposed of.