THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16049 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.214 of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station, Jogulamba-Gadwal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2) and under Section 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a report before police on 06.12.2024 stating that his parents purchased land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.428 from the petitioner herein and after six months he registered the above land in the name of his mother Narsamma. But after one month, they came to know that the said land was already registered in the name of Budda Narsanna, as such, when his parents asked the petitioner/accused about registration of land, the accused stated that he will sought out the issue, but he did not do so and dragged on the matter for years without registering the land. It is further stated panchayats were conducted before the village elders where, the petitioner said that he committed a mistake and he will register the land in the name of mother of defacto complainant. Further, when the defacto complainant asked him to register the land, the petitioner used filthy language and also stated that he will not register the land. As such, requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint the police registered the case against the petitioner for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue pertains to land transaction of the year 2007. The defacto complainant is not the aggrieved party. His parents entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment in Delhi Race Club Vs State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, wherein, in para 27 it is observed that there cannot be accusations of both criminal breach of trust under Section 316 (2) and cheating under Section 318 (4) of BNS; that there is no entrustment of property by the victim to the accused. Therefore, the offence

under Section 316 (2) of BNS is not applicable to the petitioner. To attract offence under Section 318 (4) of BNS there must be intention to cheat from the beginning and it has to be shown that property was dishonestly misappropriated or converted to the use. Hence, the same is not attracted in this case. Further, to attract the offence under Section 352 of BNS, intimidation shall be to cause disturbance to the public. In the present case, the matter is civil in nature and without filing the suit for specific performance, the defacto complainant lodged a report only to threaten the petitioner to settle the civil scores. The defacto complainant has no locus standii to lodge a complaint and there are not allegations against the petitioner to constitute the alleged offences. Hence, prayed to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

5. Though notice is served on 2nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that admittedly, there is a delay of 16 years in lodging the complaint. However, the complaint shows that as panchayats were conducted with regard to this issue, there was delay in lodging the report. As the matter is at FIR stage, it requires investigation, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

Hence, prayed to dismiss this criminal petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the alleged offences against the petitioner are under Section 316 (2), 318 (4) and 352 of BNS. The allegations show that the said agreement was entered in the year 2007 but registration was not done in favour of parents