Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 503 (KAR)

R. Parameshwara v. Shanthabai

2014-04-29

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The complainant in PCR No. 13315/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, is before this Court challenging the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in dismissing his complaint and accepting the 'B' report filed by Banashankari Police Station. 2. Admittedly, the complainant is the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy. No.58/2 of Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in which, he is said to have formed sites and given power of attorney in favour of one Prabhakar, husband of 1st respondent, in respect of site bearing No.4-P. The complaint is filed by him in FIR No.228/2009 against respondents 1 and 2 m this proceeding alleging that 1st accused has sold portion of Sy. No.58/2 of Katriguppe Village, Uttaraballi bobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in favour of 2nd accused by creating and concocting documents. 3. The said complaint was investigated into by Banashankari Police Station and thereafter, 'B' report is filed by the Police recording that though the complainant, Parameshwara, is the erstwhile owner of land bearing No.58/2, he formed sites on the said property and sold them under general power of attorney and consideration receipts in favour of various persons. One such site bearing No.4 P was sold by the complainant in favour of late Prabhakar, the husband of 1st respondent, by executing G.P.A. on 20.06.1987. Subsequently, the said site has been sold by 1st respondent in favour of 2nd respondent. It is also recorded in the 'B' report that the petitioner herein is in the habit of harassing the purchasers of sites formed by him in Sy. No.58/2 under various agreements of sale, G.P.A. and consideration receipts by demanding excess payment and in respect of persons, who failed to comply with his illegal demand, he is in the habit of filing complaints. 4. A private complaint is filed by the complainant in PCR No. 13315/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, alleging offences punishable under Sections 415, 416, 418, 420 and 423 of IPC., which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.07.2011 by accepting the 'B' report filed by Banashankar:' Police m FIR No.228/2009. It is further seen that against the order passed by the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, alleging offences punishable under Sections 415, 416, 418, 420 and 423 of IPC., which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.07.2011 by accepting the 'B' report filed by Banashankar:' Police m FIR No.228/2009. It is further seen that against the order passed by the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in PCR No. 13315/2011, a criminal revision petition is also filed by him in Crl.R.P. No.275/2011 on the file of Fast Track and Sessions Court -XVI at Bangalore, which also came to be dismissed. 5. As against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the present criminal petition is filed seeking to set aside the order passed in PCR No. 13315/2011 in dismissing the complaint and in accepting the B' report m FIR No.228/2009, which has been confirmed by the Fast Track Sessions Court in Crl.R.P. No.275/2011 by order dated 16.10.2012. 6. On going through the order impugned and the grounds urged, it is clearly seen that in the entire proceedings, the complainant in his greed, has not only filed false complaint against respondents 1 and 2 herein, but tried to pursue the same with such audacity as to unnecessarily subject respondent No.1 herein to undergo untold misery for having purchased property from him after paying valuable consideration way back in the year 1987. It is also seen that the complainant had earlier filed O.S. No.2021/2008 against respondents herein, which was later withdrawn by him. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the order dated 23.07.2011 passed by III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in PCR No. 13315/2011, which has been confirmed by the Fast Track Sessions Court-XVI, in Crl.R.P. No.275/2011 by order dated 16.10.2012 is just and proper. No grounds are made out to interfere with the same. 8. In fact, the facts and circumstances leading to this criminal petition discloses, how greed of people take over their good sense. The petitioner himself having sold the property belonging to him in favour of 1st respondent's husband, Prabhakar has been tenaciously trying to reclaim the same by filing false complaint and thereby subjecting the purchaser and his family to untold misery of defending a false complaint and consequential litigation. This conduct cannot be ignored by simply dismissing this petition. The same shall be subject to punitive cost to cover the legal expenses incurred by the respondents herein. 9. This conduct cannot be ignored by simply dismissing this petition. The same shall be subject to punitive cost to cover the legal expenses incurred by the respondents herein. 9. Accordingly, petition is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs. 15,000/-on the petitioner, which he shall deposit before this Court within 15 days from today. On such deposit, it shall be released in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein at Rs.7500/- each. It is further observed that m the event of failure on the part of petitioner herein to deposit cost before this Court within the stipulated time, respondents 1 and 2 shall be entitled to levy execution as if the present order is an executable decree and recover the same by subjecting the petitioner herein for arrest and his detention into civil prison to enforce the said order, in addition to seeking attachment of his assets for realizing the said amount.