Criminal proceedings can be initiated if a prima facie case exists, even if the accused claim the dispute is civil, highlighting the necessity of factual examination in property disputes.

ORDER :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 10 have filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.RP.No.135/2016, directing the trial Court to take cognizance and register the case against them and proceeded in accordance with law.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 10 have contented that the Sessions Court has failed to notice that complainant on his own has involved the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The complaint is not supported by the affidavit as required under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The complaint is not maintainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Reported in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Priyanka Srivastavai), (2015) 6 SCC 287 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 . The Sessions Court ought to have appreciated the fact that complaint is filed to harass the accused persons by suppressing true facts and has played fraud on the Court. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are no more and the order is passed against dead persons and as such the entire proceedings is vitiated. There is no basis for the complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings. There is no cause of action. The dispute is purely civil in nature. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint. It requires to be restored and pray to allow the petition.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision in Sri.Sathya Sai Central Trust and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.  -(Sri.Sathya Sai Central Trust), Crl.P.No.1422/2021 & connected matters Dt:22.07.2021

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant submitted that a society by name Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power-looms) came to be registered in No.S-538, under the provisions of Mysore Society Registration Act III of 1904. It was represented by its President B.S.Shankarappa Shetty and Secretary Sri Y.R.Venkataramaiah. The association purchased Property No.48, measuring 39 into 28 1/2 feet, situated at J.M.Cross Road, Makkala Basavanna Temple Street, Bengaluru- 02 (for short property in question), from Shri B.N.Siddalingappa, and his family members, through Registered Sale deed, 10.04.1957, Registered at the office of the sub registrar Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. In the records of survey settlement and land records, the said property is standing in the name of the Mysore Silk. Off late, the said association became defunct. The Registrar of the firms, issued notice dated 19.10.1992, for not applying for renewal and also not submitting the list of the members as well as executive members of the association. However, no reply was sent to the said notice.

-

4.1 When things stood us, one Hottepaksha Rangaswamy, who was the father of accused No.9 got registered an association by name, Silk Manufacturing Association, during 1999–2000, which is totally different and distinct from Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power-looms) and has nothing to do with the same. On the basis of the said registration, the accused persons started claiming that the property purchased by the Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power-looms) belongs to them. They have fraudulently got transferred the Khata in their names.

-

4.2 Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 have sold the said property in favour of accused No.10 through