Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. Patil, J.
Yousuff Shariff @ D Babu Proprietor Of Umrah Developers - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4020 of 2019, 4738 of 2019, 3747 of 2020
Decided On : 23-10-2020
Kiran S Javali, Advocate, Shyam Sundar M S, Advocate, R.D. Renukaradhya, Advocate, Abhilash Raju, Advocate, A.R. Desai, Advocate, S. Balakrishnan, Advocate, Navkesh Bathra, Advocate, Kiran S Javali, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a civil remedy is available and a dispute is essentially civil in nature, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
MOU - Property Dispute - Sections 406 and 420 of IPC - Cr.P.C. - [Sections 406, 420 of IPC, Section 482 of Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the nature of the dispute, the allegations of cheating, and the exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of court. The court emphasized that when a civil remedy is available and a dispute is essentially civil in nature, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The court referred to the cases of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi, Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand to support its decision to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The cases involved disputes arising from Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for property development and sale. The complainants alleged cheating by the accused for not fulfilling the terms of the MOUs. Civil suits and injunction orders were also part of the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputes were essentially civil in nature and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. It emphasized that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised to prevent such abuse.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations of cheating and non-fulfillment of MOU terms constituted criminal offenses or were essentially civil in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that when a civil remedy is available and a dispute is essentially civil in nature, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. It cited relevant case law to support this principle.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in all the cases, emphasizing that the disputes were essentially civil in nature and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
JUDGMENT
B.A.Patil, J. - Since these cases are interconnected to each other and since common question of law and facts are involved, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Crl.P.No.4020/2019 and Crl.P.No.4738/2019 have been preferred by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIR in Crime No.47/2019 and 111/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC of Ashoknagar police station pending on the file of IV Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru. Crl.P.No.3747/2020 has been filed by petitionersaccused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.170/2020 of Ashoknagar police station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
3. I have heard Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for Sri.Shyam Sundar.M.S., learned counsel for petitioneraccused and Sri.Abhilash Raju, learned counsel for Sri.A.R.Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4020/2019; Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for Sri.S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for petitioner-accused and Sri.Navkesh Bathra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4738/2019; and Sri.Abhilash Raju, learned counsel for Sri.A.R.Desai, learned counsel for petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant in Crl.P.No.3747/2020; and Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State in all the three cases.
4. The brief facts of the case in Crl.P.No.4020/2019 are that complainant-respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU for short) dated 17.4.2013 in respect of Sy.No.212 of Gattihalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk measuring 2 acres 38 guntas with petitioner-accused for development of the said land for formation of layout. Thereafter, they have approached the Government offices for necessary sanctions. Subsequently, petitioner-accused expressed his intention to sell the land and complainant accepted the said offer to purchase the land for a valuable consideration and accordingly, petitioner-accused got executed a sale deed dated 13.11.2013 and the same was agreed to be submitted before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration. On 13.11.2013, though it was submitted, it was not registered due to some technical issues and was postponed by petitioner-accused to some other day. Thereafter, several times complainant approached the petitioner-accused to complete the formalities of registration as agreed upon, but petitioner avoided and thereby, he has cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
5. The brief facts of the case in Crl.P.No.4738/2019 are that respondent No.2 on behalf of M/s.Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., was carrying on the business of land development. Petitioner-accused approached the said company by representing that he has purchased certain government lands in public auction. One of such property is bearing Sy.No.80 situate at Kittaganuru village, Biddarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk measuring 6 acres and another property in Sy.No.81 measuring 1 acre of the same village. He further represented that the title is clear and already he had made 25% of payment and he has to make balance amount to the Government and in that light, a MOU dated 04.08.2011 has been entered with the complainant and accordingly, an amount of Rs.7 crores has been paid to the petitioner-accused by the complainant. The petitioner-accused agreed to register the land for joint development and requested another sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards registration charges. Considering the situation and in good faith, Rs.15 lakhs in addition to Rs.7 crores has been paid by the complainant. Subsequently, petitioner-accused started delaying and in the meanwhile, created an encumbrance on the said property to the extent of Rs.3 crores from one Mr.Nagaraj and thereby, he has cheated the complainant. Accordingly, complaint came to be
