K. PUNITHA Vs. STATE BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned petition is originally filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.505/2024 for the offence punishable under Ss. 120B, 419, 420, 465, 471, 468 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') on the file of the 29th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City.

(2.) During the pendency of these proceedings, accused Nos.1 and 3, who are respectively the sister and father of accused No.2, withdrew their petitions, thereby consenting to face investigation and prosecution in the event a final report is filed by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the present petition survives only in respect of accused No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 accused No.2 reiterating the grounds urged submits that petitioner No.2 had no role whatsoever in the execution of the Gift Deed obtained by accused No.1 Smt.K.Punitha. He contends that accused No.2 is merely a bona fide transferee-donee under the Gift Deed executed in his favour by his sister - accused No.1. Therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of Ss. 120B, 420, 465 and 471 of the IPC are not attracted against petitioner No.2. He further submits that civil suits concerning the subject property are already pending between the parties and thus, the complainant cannot simultaneously pursue criminal prosecution on the same cause of action. Accordingly, to prevent abuse of the process of law and since the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.