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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.