Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH AND SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ, JJ.
DR. LEENA VIJAYKUMAR WIFE OF MR. VIJAYAKUMAR KOUJALGI -COMPLAINANT
Versus
V. RAMESH BABU SON OF LATE C VEERAPPA - ACCUSED
CRL.CCC NO.4 OF 2018
Decided On : 23-12-2019
For the Appellant :SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 12(1) 15(1)(b), 11,12 and 2(c) - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 448, 427, 34 and 193 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 313 - order of injunction restraining - gross violation of the order of temporary injunction - mortgaged - Examination of accused - Whether accused can be absorbed (SIC) (absolved) from his criminal liability inter alia on ground complainant and accused have entered into a compromise - Whether suit filed by accused - Whether he had filed a memo before Executing Court effect he was not in possession of the suit schedule property - Whether he had stated that he was in possession of suit schedule property in suit filed - Whether by words, spoken or written, or any signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise Complainant is a medical practitioner who had entered into an agreement of sale with one to purchase property bearing Layout Extension said having not executed sale deed, complainant had filed a suit for specific performance order of injunction restraining Indu Kumari from alienating the schedule property had been passed - accused had purchased the schedule property in gross violation of order of temporary injunction for an amount mortgaged - complainant had filed an application to implead the accused in said suit - Accused had contended he was not a necessary – Held, Complainant has been forced to defend various unnecessary proceedings. The complainant had entered into an agreement of sale and filed a suit wherein a decree came to be passed complicity between the vendor and the accused herein accused has purchased property during the pendency of injunction order - He has set up Karnataka tice. It is, therefore, required a sentence of imprisonment be passed against the accused – Court direct the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months as also to make payment of Registrar of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment - Accused shall be arrested forthwith and sent to prison - Criminal Contempt petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. The present Contempt Petition has been filed contending that the accused has indulged in acts amounting to criminal contempt of this Court including the abuse of judicial process before the trial Court as also before this Court. The complainant has sought for the accused to be punished for contempt of court under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. The complainant states that:
2.1 The complainant is a medical practitioner who had entered into an agreement of sale with one Indu Kumari to purchase the property bearing No.37 (Old No.137) with PID No.621837 situated at 8th Main, 14th Cross, Lakkasandra Layout Extension, Bengaluru – 560 030. Since the said Indu Kumari having not executed the sale deed, the complainant had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.16494 of 2005. On 27.05.2005 an order of injunction restraining Indu Kumari from alienating the schedule property had been passed.
2.2 The accused had purchased the schedule property on 16.03.2007 from Smt.Indu Kumari in gross violation of the order of temporary injunction for an amount of Rs.23,00,500/and mortgaged the same to Bengaluru City Cooperative Bank Limited for Rs.24,25,000/on 20.09.2007.
2.3 Immediately on coming to know of the same, the complainant had filed an application to implead the accused in the said suit. However, the accused had contended that he was not a necessary party and hence, the impleading application came to be rejected by the trial Court on 01.09.2008.
2.4 The accused failed to repay the mortgage debt to Bengaluru City Cooperative Bank Limited and the Bengaluru City Cooperative Bank Limited had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by issuing a public notification dated 31.01.2009. The complainant had challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4907 of 2009 before this Court, which came to be disposed off on 03.03.2009 observing that the purchase by the accused was lis pendens.
2.5 The trial Court decreed the suit on merits on 29.01.2011 against which Regular First Appeal in RFA No.367 of 2011 was filed by Indu Kumari before the High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed on 18.10.2011 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. This Court in the said RFA had directed Complainant to make additional payment in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/to Indu Kumari in order to clear the encumbrance created by Indu Kumari.
2.6 This amount was deposited by the complainant and execution proceedings were filed in Execution Petition No.25033 of 2012 wherein the complainant had also arrayed the accused as a judgment debtor.
2.7 The accused seeking to review the order dated 18.10.2011 passed in RFA No.368 of 2011 filed Review Petition in R.P.No.542 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 17.08.2012. Subsequently, the trial Court proceeded with the execution and executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant on 17.09.2012. Against the said order passed in execution proceedings, the accused had filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court of Karnataka in CRP No.404 of 2012 which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2012. The accused challenged the dismissal of RFA No.367 of 2011 (filed by Indu Kumari) and R.P.No.542 of 2011 (filed by accused) through Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(C) Nos.3188788 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed on 02.11.2015. The accused filed a Review Petition in R.P.(C) Nos.9596 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking for review of the order of dismissal passed in SLP Nos.3188788 of 2012. The said Review Petitions also came to be dismissed on 21.01.2016. The accused thereafter had filed a Curative Petition Nos.26768 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 21.07.2016.
2.8 On such finality being achieved, the complainant pursued the Execution Petition and sought for possession of the sched
