SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 46673

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6921 OF 2019

BETWEEN

1 . SRI BABU @ RAJASEGAR

S/O SRI JONAS,

AGE 55 YEARS,

R/AT NO.21, 7TH CROSS,

SUMATHI NAGAR, ROBERTSONPET,

K.G.F. KARNATAKA - 563 113.

2 . SMT PATHI @ FATHIMA

W/O SRI BABU @ RAJASEGAR,

AGE 45 YEARS,

R/AT NO.21, 7TH CROSS,

SUMATHI NAGAR,

ROBERTSONPET,

K.G.F. KARNATAKA - 563 113.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. R A DEVANAND , ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

OORGAUM CIRCLE, KGF, KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

2 .

SRI V VENKATESH

S/O SRI VENKATAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

CONTRACTOR BY PROFESSON,

2

R/AT GONAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,

ANDERSONPET POST, K.G.F. - 563 113.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R1

SRI. MARUTHI G., ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH

THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.433/2019 BEFORE THE

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. J.M.F.C., K.G.F., FOR THE

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363,420,504 AND

506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS

PETITION.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petition is filed by petitioners accused Nos.1

and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the

criminal

proceedings

against

them

in

C.C.

No.433/2019 pending on the file of the Principal Civil

Judge (Junior Division) and Additional J.M.F.C. at

K.G.F., for the offences punishable under Sections

363, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on

the private complaint filed by respondent No.2.

3

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and the

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of prosecution is that on the

complaint of respondent No.2 before the Magistrate

and after referring the matter to the police under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the police registered a case

against the petitioners and later, filed charge sheet

by deleting the provision of Section 363 of IPC and

filed charge sheet only for Sections 420, 504, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the

complainant that the petitioners-accused are the

owners of the site in question. The petitioners-accused

entered into a contract with respondent No.2-

complainant for construction of a building of two floors

and given labour contract to respondent No.2 where

they agreed to construct building with labour charges

4

of Rs.9,11,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant has

stated to have constructed the building up to second

floor

level

and

received

Rs,7,31,130/-

and

subsequently, due to some dispute between the

petitioners and respondent No.2, the work was

stopped and the petitioners accused did not pay the

remaining amount. However, the petitioners said to

be threatened respondent No.2-complainant and

obtained

signature

of

the

respondent

No.2-

complainant and created document, so that the

complainant himself has to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the

petitioner-accused

persons.

Based

upon

the

complaint, the police investigated the matter and filed

charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused

Nos.1 and 2 contended that respondent No.2 did not

complete the construction work and he stopped the

5

work

and

petitioners

have

paid

more

than

Rs.7,50,000/- towards labour charges and finally,

dispute arose between them. The learned counsel

further submits that respondent No.2-complainant told

that he has no objection to engage any other labour

contractor for completing the remaining work and

went away. This document given to the investigation

officer in this regard was not considered and the

accused

have

already

paid

the

amount

of

Rs.7,85,000/- and there is no question of paying the

remaining

amount

without

completing

the

construction. The dispute is of civil in nature and the

complainant also did not chose to file any complaint in

the first instance and hence, prays for allowing the

petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, has seriously objected the case. The

6

petitioners-accused

persons

by

threatening

the

respondent No.2-complainant have obtained signature

on the blank paper for Rs.1,50,000/- and a legal

notice was issued to petitioner-accused persons and

they have stopped construction work completely and

the

remaining

amount

was

not

paid

to

the

complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, of course, it is not in dispute that the

petitioners-accused, who are the owners of the site,

have entered into a contract with respondent No.2-

complainant for construction of building of floors 1 and

2 for Rs.9.00 lakhs. It is also not in dispute that the

building

was

not

completely

constructed

by

respondent No.2. There was dispute between

7

themselves as the petitioners have not paid money,

but as per the document produced by the petitioners,

it reveals that totally, respondent No.2-complainant

has received the amount of Rs.7,31,150/-. Of course,

as per the agreement, the petitioners were required to

pay Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent No.2, but respondent

No.2 not completed construction work and s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top