- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3827 CRL.P No. 3807 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3807 OF 2022 BETWEEN: H.N.S. MURTHY S/O LATE H.P. NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT "NITHYODAYA ENCLAVE - APARTMENT", NO.25, 5TH MAIN JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE - 570 012. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY JAYALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE MYSORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. B. ANAND S/O LATE BASAPPA .M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.2358/A ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD OPP. APOLLO HOSPITAL KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE - 570 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3827 CRL.P No. 3807 of 2022 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MYSURU IN C.C.NO.115/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 417, 418, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.1 in CC No.115 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR No.8 of 2018 against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 is the owner of the property and he has executed an agreement for sale in favour of accused No.2 - the proprietor of M/s Balaji Builders on 12.08.2013. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 12.08.2013, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3827 CRL.P No. 3807 of 2022 according to which, accused No.2 has got right to develop the property. On 21.05.2015, accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly executed the registered agreement for sale in favour of the complainant agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.31,00,000/-. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- by way of cheque as advance sale consideration in favour of accused No.2. But thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 have not sold the property in favor of the complainant. On the other hand accused No.1 executed registered sale deed dated 22.09.2017 in favour of accused No.3. Thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences as stated above. Accordingly, the investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered CC No.115 of 2018, which is pending consideration. In the meantime, the petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 3. Heard Sri M Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3827 CRL.P No. 3807 of 2022 respondent No.2 is absent. No representation. Hence, his arguments is taken as NIL. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 5. As per the contentions taken by the parties and on going through the materials on record, it is found that the petitioner - accused No.1 is the owner of the property. He appears to have entered into MOU with accused No.2 who is a builder on 12.08.2013 to develop the property. Later on 21.05.2015, accused Nos.1 and 2 have executed registered agreement for sale in favor of the complainant agreeing to sell the property in his favour and the consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to accused No.2. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3827 CRL.P No. 3807 of 2022 Even thereafter, the sale deed was not executed. However, it is the specific contention of the complainant that on 22.09.2017, accused No.1 has sold the very same property in favour of accused No. 3 and thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed cheating. 6. The materials on record prima facie discloses that accused No.2 was not a party to the sale deed dated 22.09.2017, whereas, it is executed by accused No.1 who is the owner of the property. Accused No.3 is the subsequent purchaser under the sale deed. In the meantime, the complaint is filed. It is thereafter, the complainant has filed the suit OS No.87 of 2018 seeking specific performance of contract, which is said to be pending before the learned IV Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru. The complainant has also filed criminal complaint alleging cheating. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet. Prima facie, accused Nos.1 and 2 after entering registered agreement of sale dated 21.05.2015 sold the very same property under the registered sale deed executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.3. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3827 CRL.P No. 3807 of 2022 and he has not committed any offence, cannot be accepted at this stage. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.2 being the builder has cheated the petitioner, accused No.3 and also the complainant, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, accused No.1 has not initiated any action against accused No.2. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence, I answer the above point the Negative and proceed the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner - accused No.1 is now aged 87 years and the criminal case is of the year 2018. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the matter. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23