K. LALITHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 6. Inspite of respondent No.2-complainant is represented through the counsel, the counsel is not pursuing the matter. Hence, this Court in the previous occasion, made it clear that if counsel for respondent No.2 does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence. Today, heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State.

(2.) Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.15554/2020 would contend that this Court already allowed the Crl.P.No.10341/2023 connected with Crl.P.No.10708/2023 vide order dtd. 12/7/2024 in respect of some of the accused. The counsel also would vehemently contend that if there is any dispute with regard to the execution of sale agreement or any document of GPA and also when the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance, question of continuing the criminal proceedings at the instance of an agreement holder who entered into an agreement with the accused does not arise since already civil suit is pending. The counsel also would contend that the material discloses that bank has taken steps to recover the money which was advanced. If there is any such violation, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. Apart from that the counsel would contend that at the instance of the agreement holder, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioners.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the allegation made against these petitioners is that they are the parties to the agreement. The counsel would submit that accused No.2 is a stranger to the complainant and he is not known to the complainant and not executed any document. But the complainant has created the document. The counsel also submits that the complainant has filed the W.P.No.29089/2024 wherein the very petitioners have filed an application to produce the original document allegedly executed by the petitioners. Inspite of the said application, the complainant has not produced any document. Even if any document is executed, the complainant cannot initiate any criminal prosecution since the same is a civil dispute between the parties and cannot give criminal colour to the dispute. Without any intention to cheat the complainant, if any document is executed, there must be at the inception of the transaction, there must be cheating, cannot make use of the alleged execution of document for the criminal prosecution. Hence, there cannot be any abuse of process against these petitioners based on alleged execution of power of attorney and any sale agreement. The counsel also would submit that these petitioners are the strangers and no way done any transaction with the complainant. The counsel also would submit that against this complainant, there are 114 cases and as per the information, he had indulged in filing such cases.