- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 19034 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR SYED MUJAHID S/O SYED HASHAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, POLICE LANE B BHARATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560045 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANASWADI, BENGALURU. 2. MR. BALAKRISHNA V PAI S/O VASUDEV PAI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. MRS. ANURADHA BALAKRISHNA V PAI W/O MR. BALAKRISHNA PAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT F-1, ANU HOMES, 4TH CROSS ROAD, SECTOR-A, AMRUTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560092 …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED: 21.09.2023 SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.CHANDAN.S.MALAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CR.NO.0532 AND PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.52220/2023 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A, B AND C IS CHARGESHEET. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is sole accused has filed this petition under Article 226 r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.2204/2023 on the file of XI ACMM, Bengaluru, arising out of Cr.No.532/2023 of Banaswadi PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464 of IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, accused has contended that the transaction between him and complainants is with regard to sale of immovable properties. If they are - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 aggrieved they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court. The transaction between the parties is of the year 2016 and after 6 years complainants have filed the complaint, which is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. After having conveyed the title, it is for the complainants to put up construction and if there is no any interference to take action against such persons accused cannot be prosecuted. Matter is purely civil in nature. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: i) Sarabjit Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab and Anr. (Sarabjit Kaur)1 ii) Patel Engineering Ltd and Ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and Anr. (Patel Engineering)2 iii) M/s Shikhar Chemicals Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (M/s Shikhar Chemicals)3 1 Crl.A.No.581/2023 Dt:01.03.2023 2 Crl.P.No.6513/2024 Dt:06.08.2024 3 SLA(Crl)No.11445/2025 Dt:04.08.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that complainants are husband and wife. During 2015, complainants and their family members were searching for a residential site at Bengaluru and they came in contact with the accused. He represented that he is owning residentially converted land in Sy.No.103/5 and offered to sell site No.20 and showed it. He also furnished copies of documents, such as sale deed, property register extract, MR extract, tax paid receipt and Khata endorsement. He assured that there are no litigations, encumbrance, etc. 5.1 Believing the words of accused, respondent Nos.2 and 3 purchased the said site for a total sum of Rs.36 lakhs. Payments were made from 16.01.2015 to 27.11.2015 through account transfer. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also bore the registration expenses. In fact the draft of the sale deed was prepared by their advocate in respect - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 of site No.20. However, petitioner insisted that he would get the draft of the sale deed prepared through his counsel and refused to execute the sale deed as per the draft prepared by counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since already respondent Nos.2 and 3 had paid the entire sale consideration, they had no other option but to agree for the same. However, to their shock and surprise respondent Nos.2 and 3 found that instead of site No.20, petitioner has mentioned the site number as 6 and on enquiry said that when the property was coming under the jurisdiction of Horamavu Gramthana, it was assigned site No.20 and the BBMP is yet to assign new site numbers and he assured that site No.6 would be assigned to the property sold to them and he would rectify the same through rectification deed. He also convinced respondent Nos.2 and 3 that since the site adjoining the property sold to them belonging to Elango is site No.19, the property sold to them is correct. Accordingly, they got registered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 the sale deed in the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their children. 5.2 However, during January 2022, when complainants intended to put construction over site No.6 and tried to clean it, a person by name Vijaykumar Yadav came and demanded as to why they are cleaning site No.20 and that he is declared as owner in O.S.No.3324/2009. When questioned accused did not come up with any explanation. After going through the judgment, complainants realized that Vijaykumar Yadav has filed suit in O.S. No.3324/2009 in respect of site No.20 in which accused was defendant No.6. Against the said judgment and decree, accused has filed RFA.No.2085/2011 before this Court and it is pending. The accused has deliberately suppressed the true facts and executed the sale deed in respect of a property in dispute. Though in the sale deed, it is stated that the property is free from encumbrance, it is also stated that in case of litigation, he would return the sale consideration with interest. Despite knowing that he is not having title, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 the petitioner has cheated the complainants and committed fraud. 5.3 Therefore, they got issued legal notice to refund Rs.36 lakhs with interest at 18% and also Rs.20 lakhs towards registration expenses and damages. Despite receipt of the notice, accused has not responded. Therefore, the complainants were forced to file the complaint. However, the concerned police issued NCR. Therefore, they have filed private complaint. On reference, it is registered in Cr.No.532/2022 and charge sheet is filed. There is prima facie material to proceed against the accused and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Punit Beriwala Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (Punit Beriwala)4 (ii) Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S Reddy and Ors. (Kathyayini)5 4 2025 SCC Online SC 983 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 7. Heard arguments and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that accused is the vendor and complainants and their children are purchasers of site measuring 30' x 50' ft situated in Nisarga Colony, Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli through registered sale deed dated 19.02.2016. They have paid the entire sale consideration. It is alleged by complainants that initially petitioner offered to sell site No.20 and after the entire sale consideration of Rs.36 lakhs were paid, he came up with an ingenious way of saying that site No.20 is re- numbered as 6 by BBMP and executed the sale deed. Since they had already paid the entire sale consideration, complainants were constrained to get the sale deed executed. When they tried to put up construction, they realized that site No.6 is no other than site No.20 and it is sold to one Vijaykumar Yadav and he had filed suit in O.S.No.3324/2009 against accused and others and it was decreed during 2011 itself. In other words, the accused was aware of the fact that the said site was in litigation 5 2025 SCC Online SC 1428 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 and he was not having title to the same. In fact he has also filed RFA.2085/2011 before this Court and it is still pending. Despite the same, he has the audacity to falsely represent to complainants and their children that he is the owner of the property conveyed in their favour. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has drawn the attention of this Court to the following recitals of the sale deed dated 19.02.2016 in favour of complainant Nos. 1 and 2 and their children: 1) The Vendor has delivered the actual, physical and vacant possession of the Schedule Property to the purchasers on this day of deed. 2) The Vendor do hereby state and assure that the Schedule Property is free from any sort of encumbrances, liens, attachments, litigations etc., and in case of any litigations, attachments, arise in future towards the Schedule Property, the Vendor has to repay all the expenses which may arise to clear all court cases or any other consequences with the construction cost of building and liquid damages with 18% interest and other losses to the Purchasers. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 3) The Vendor undertakes to settle any disputes, cases, litigation, attachment if any pending before any court, office etc., at his own cost and risk and compensate to the purchasers for any losses incurred by them from such case or litigation. 4) The Vendor hereby declares that he has not entered into any agreement of sale with any other person except the purchasers herein or executed any sort of power of attorney, will, gift deed, lease deed or oral commitment etc., in favour of any third persons/towards the Schedule Property prior to this day of deed. 5) That the Vendor today hereby puts the Purchasers in actual and vacant possession of the Schedule Property to retain, hold, use and enjoy the same as per their wish, without any disturbances or interference from the Vendor or any third person claiming through him. 6) The Vendor has agreed to co-operate the purchasers to get mutate the concerned revenue records of the scheduled property." 10. In the light of the fact that already accused had suffered a decree at the hands of Civil Court and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 Regular First Appeal filed by him was pending before this Court, these recitals prima facie are false. In fact, as per recitals at Sl.No.2, he has offered to repay all the expenses which may arise to clear all the Court cases or any other consequences with the construction cost of building and liquid damages with 18% interest and other losses to the purchasers. All these aspects clearly indicate that when the sale deed was executed, accused was aware of the fact that he was not the owner and he had the intention of cheating the purchasers including complainants. Therefore, there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused. It is not just a case of civil dispute between the parties and as such the petition is liable to be rejected. 11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the accused are not applicable to the case on hand and accordingly, the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37990 WP No. 19034 of 2023 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34