C N DILIP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any argument.

(2.) An agreement was entered into between M/s.Prestige Lake View, Project by Prestige Shelters Private Limited as vendors in favour of Mrs.R.Lakshmi respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"), on 28.01.2005, whereby the aforesaid vendor namely "M/s.Prestige Lake View, Project by Prestige Shelters Private Limited" agreed to sell one residential plot formed in Prestige Lake View, measuring 1200 sq.ft., of the dimension of 30' x 40', for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the terms of the said agreement, on completion of the scheme, the site was agreed to be registered in favour of respondent No.2. The terms of the said agreement having not been adhered to, the second respondent filed a complaint before respondent No.1 Kalasipalya Police, alleging that, by playing fraud and deception, complainant was made to part huge amounts in installments and the vendors failed to transfer the site to the complainant. Based on this complaint, FIR in Crime No.39/2015 was registered against five accused persons. The petitioner herein is shown as accused No.2 as Director of M/s.Prestige Shelters Private Limited.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, arising out of a written contract of sale. In respect of breach of the terms of said agreement, petitioner himself had approached the District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore. As per section 22(c) of Legal Services Authority Act 1987, pre-litigation conciliation had commenced and a notice in this regard was issued to respondent No.2 on 20.12.2014. After receipt of the said notice, instant complaint has been filed only to compel and coerce the petitioner to agree to the illegal terms of the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint do not disclose elements of cheating or fraudulent intention or deception on the part of the petitioner. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The criminal process invoked by the respondent No.2/complainant is mala fide and an abuse of process of court and therefore, FIR registered against petitioner is liable to be quashed.