1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1177 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1.

Smt. S.N.Vinoda,

W/o R.Satya @ Baddi Satya,

Aged about 43 years,

R/o near Railway Quarters,

Gandinagar Extension,

B.Katihalli Post, Hassan Town,

Hassan-573201.

2.

R.Satya @ Baddi Satya,

S/o Ramegowda,

Aged about 46 years,

R/o near Railway quarters,

Gandinagar Extension,

B.Katihalli Post, Hassan Town,

Hassan-573201.

&Petitioners

(By Sri Girish B Baladare, Advocate)

AND

1.

Naveen Kumar K.,

S/o. Krishnegowda,

Aged about 34 years,

Vivekanagara Extension,

2

Kotte, Arkalgudu Town,

Hassan District-573201.

2.

The State of Karnataka,

Arkalgudu Police Station,

Arkalgudu,

Hassan District-573201.

Represented by Public Prosecutor,

High Court Building,

Bengaluru-560001.

&Respondents

(By Smt. Haleema Ameen, Advocate for R1,

Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet filed against

the petitioners in C.C.No.871/2018 (Cr.No.105/2017)

registered

by

Arakalgudu

Police

Station

as

per

annexure-A for the offence punishable under Sections

420, 406 read with 34 of IPC same is pending on the file

of

Principal

Civil

Judge

(Jr.Dn.)

and

J.M.F.C.,

Arakalgudu.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this

day, the Court made the following:

3

ORDER

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.871/2018

pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Arakalagudu, Hassan District against the petitioners.

2.

Heard Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned

counsel

for

the

first

respondent

and

Sri

R.D.Rudraradhya,

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader for second respondent-State.

3.

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in

the private complaint, PCR No.12/2017, initiated by the

first respondent in relation to offences punishable under

Sections 107, 417, 418, 420, 405, 406, 465 and 468 of

IPC.

4.

The case of the complainant i.e., the first

respondent is that the first petitioner being the wife of

4

the second petitioner falsely represented to the first

respondent that she was the only daughter to her father

and that her father had passed away and therefore she

had become the absolute owner of a site bearing No.142,

Assessment No.2973 measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at

Arakalagudu town, Hassan District and entered into an

agreement with the first respondent on 20.04.2016 for

selling that property to him for a total consideration of

Rs.16,50,000/-. She received advance amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-. On 12.08.2016, the petitioners got

issued a notice to the first respondent stating that they

were ready to execute the sale deed in accordance with

the terms of the agreement and in case he was not

ready to purchase the property, they would forfeit the

advance amount. Having issued this notice, it is alleged

that

the

petitioners

sold

the

property

to

one

A.S.Renukaradhya, the fourth accused in the private

complaint. The first respondent came to know that the

5

first petitioner9s father was very much alive and that he

had not executed any gift deed in favour of the first

petitioner. The first respondent having felt cheated by

these transactions presented a private complaint.

5.

Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the transaction stated in the

private complaint is purely civil in nature. The first

respondent has filed a suit for specific performance and

it is still pending. Therefore no offence is constituted.

He also submits that the learned Magistrate has failed to

notice that the first respondent did not approach the

police and then the Superintendent of Police as required

under Section