VASUDEVACHARYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent though served not present nor represented by any Counsel. The present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No. 145/2012 on the file of Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad registered on 08.10.2012 for the offence under Section 420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts that emanate from the records are that, the respondent No. 2 herein claimed that the petitioners have executed an agreement on 30.05.2012 agreeing to sell some landed property bearing its CTS No. 168/1A1 -B2 measuring 0.05 guntas in favour of the respondent No. 2, which fact has been denied by the petitioners herein. In this regard, it appears the dispute arose between the parties. The petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 183/2012, (a plaint copy is produced before the Court) against the 2nd respondent and others for grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which is more fully described above. Thereafter, as the respondent No. 2 did not desist himself from interfering with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners also filed a complaint before the Sub -Urban Police Station, Dharwad on 03.08.2012 apprehending attack by the respondent No. 2 and others and also sought for protection from the said Police. Thereafter, it is seen that through their Advocate the petitioners also got issued a notice on 21.08.2012 alleging that the respondent. No. 2 has created some fake document, agreement for sale, in order to grab the property of the petitioners and also bringing to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 2 has been threatening the petitioners by virtue of the alleged disputed documents claiming himself as the agreement holder of the said property. As the matter stands thus, the respondent No. 2 herein has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 480/2013 for permanent injunction in respect of the same property against the petitioners The above said factual aspects show that the parties are fighting against each other in respect of some alleged agreement V between them.

(3.) ON perusal of the entire materials on record, the Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint discloses any offence as such against the petitioners in order to permit the continuation of the prosecution against these petitioners. Even otherwise, the Court has to ascertain whether the said complaint is filed as a counter blast to the other civil proceedings pending between the parties and also to find out whether the nature of transaction between the parties and the dispute existing between the parties is purely civil in nature and the respondent No. 2 has converted the same into a criminal proceedings.