J RASARANJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No. 248 of 2002, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120b of the IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows.

(3.) THE learned Counsel Sri Anant Mandgi contended that the complainant Narayan Das and Smt. J. Nirmala are the brother and sister. The petitioner-Rasaranjan is the son of Smt. J. Nirmala whereas, Smt. J. Mahishree was the wife of Udayan, the second son of Smt. Nirmala and Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan is the daughter of Smt. Nirmala. The complainant being a younger brother of Smt. Nirmala entered into an agreement dated 18-2-1988 with Nirmala in respect of Survey no. 66 of Sarakki Village, measuring 30,000 sq. ft. The two sons of Nirmala are by name rasaranjan and Udayan. During the lifetime of Nirmala and her second son Udayan, he executed an absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989, put them in possession of the disputed property, in which it has been specifically stated that the complainant narayan Das had received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-under the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 and also received the balance amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- under this document and on the same day, Narayan Das has also executed an affidavit duly sworn to before the Notary and the same is attested by the Advocate by name Shri Riyaz Ahmed Sharif. That apart, the complainant has also executed a G. P. A. dated 21-10-1989 in the presence of the Notary in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan who is none else than his sister's daughter. The learned Counsel contended that the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 makes clear that he has received an amount of Rs. 1,00,0007- from his sister Smt. Nirmala describing the boundaries of the properties by annexing the sketch and thereafter an affidavit dated 21-10-1989, and an absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession dated 21-10-1989 came to be executed. The G. P. A. dated 21-10-1989 came to be executed by Narayan Das in favour of the respective parties. The learned counsel vehemently contended that in fact, the trouble started on the death of his sister Smt. Nirmala. Though the complainant has parted with the disputed property in favour of these petitioners, it is with an intention to harass, cheat and coerce them, the present complaint came to be filed after lapse of 14 years. Secondly, he contended that after the absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989 was executed, they have applied for licence to Village Panchayat of Sarakki, wherein the Village Panchayat sanctioned licence to put up construction in the area of 50 sq. ft. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, has also permitted to take electric connection and the same is dated 30-3-1994, Accordingly, the petitioners have put up construction of a house in the area of 50 sq. ft. and that even the house-warming ceremony also took place on 30-10-1994, wherein the complainant Narayan Das also attended the house-warming ceremony. It is only after the death of Smt. Nirmata, in respect of their mother's share in the remaining property held by the complainant Narayan Das, the petitioners filed O. S. No. 6083 of 2000 for the partition and separate possession. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner 1-Rasaranjan has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,42,500/- towards betterment charges, whereas the petitioner 2-Smt. J. Mahishree has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,37,370/- in respect of her share for change of khatha from the Mahanagara palike. The learned Counsel nextly contended that in pursuance of the G. P. A. executed in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan by the complainant Narayan Das that she executed two sale deeds in favour of the accused 1 and 2 which is in accordance with law. It is also contended that in the complaint no where it is stated anything about the contents of the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 or regarding receiving an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his sister Nirmala. It is only after the death of the complainant's sister, he filed O. S. No. 11 of 2001 for the relief of permanent injunction before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. But, after perusing the records as the complainant could not able to get an order of injunction in respect of the property, to take revenge and to harass the petitioners, filed a false complaint that too before the police who have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, though the property in question is situated at jayanagar and the parties also reside at Jayanagar and as a personal vendetta, filed the said complaint. Lastly contended that it is very clear from the pleadings in O. S. No. 4833 of 2002 filed by the complainant Narayan Das against these two petitioners seeking for the relief of declaration and for possession of the suit property with consequential relief, which establishes the fact that the complaint filed is nothing but the abuse of the process of law. The police though did not have any authority whatsoever to apprehend the accused persons, at the instance of the complainant, arrested them, produced them before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and were released on bail. The learned Counsel further contended that from the documents executed by Narayan Das and also from the civil suits pending, it reveals that the entire transaction is of civil in nature. From the very complaint it makes out that none of the ingredients of Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120b are made out and the complaint came to be filed with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners to knock off the property. The learned Counsel in support of his contention relied on the decisions in Kunstocom Electronics (India) Private Limited v. Gilt Pack Limited and Anr. , AIR2002 SC 739 , 2002 Crilj1012 , 2002 (1 )Crimes275 (SC ), JT2002 (1 )SC 268 , 2002 (2 )MPHT5 , 2002 (1 )SCALE323 , (2002 )2 SCC383 , [2002 ]1 SCR435 , Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Jain v. Dr. Subhash Garg and Anr. , AIR2000 SC 29 , jt1999 (8 )SC 321 , 2000 (1 )MPHT617 , 1999 (6 )SCALE588 , (1999 )8 SCC449 , [1999 ]supp4 SCR12 , 2000 (2 )SLJ92 (SC ), 2000 (1 )UJ267 (SC ), Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Anr. , 1998 VI AD (SC )437 , AIR1998 SC 2796 , [1998 ]94 Compcas401 (SC ), (1998 )4 Complj394 (SC ), 1998 Crilj4091 , JT1998 (5)SC 452 , 1998 (4 )SCALE521 , (1998 )7 SCC698 and Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR1992 SC 1815 , I (1992 )BC579 (SC ), [1992 ]75 Compcas699 (SC ), 1992 Crilj2916 , 1992 (2 )Crimes297 (SC ), JT1992 (3 )SC 46 , 1992 (1 )SCALE926 , 1993 Supp (1 )SCC499 , [1992 ]2 SCR528 contending that judicial process should not be an instrument of suppression or the needless harassment, wherein the very registering of the case is nothing but abuse of process of Court and this complaint is initiated with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. Therefore, prayed to quash the FIR and the complaint registered by the Police, Ulsoorgate, who have no jurisdiction.