SOMALINGAPPA SANNAYARASHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and the counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioner has sought an order of quashing the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag in P.C.No.188/2016 directing the respondent police to investigate the complaint filed by respondent No.1 and consequently, the entire proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 405 and 415 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the accused No.1-Venkanagouda Tugadeli was the owner of site bearing No.14 in respect of R.S.No.363A situated in Gadag-Betageri TMC and he had purchased the said property from Yeshwant Jain on 18.11.2008 and since then he was in possession of the said property. Thereafter, accused No.1 entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.Mahalingayya Chanayya Nargundmath on 16.05.2013. This being so, accused No.1 was suffering from financial crises, the petitioner at the request of accused Nos.1 and 3 was agreed to purchase the property of accused No.1 and accordingly, after raising the loan from the bank the petitioner herein purchased the said property on 23.12.2013 which was registered on the same day. In the year 2014 itself, the petitioner was transferred on deputation to Harayana unit and till 2016 he was on deputation at Harayana itself. Due to which the name of accused No.1 was continued in the revenue records and accused No.1 entered into an agreement of sale of the said property with one Mr.K.Timmareddi, who is the complainant before the Magistrate Court. On 25.08.2015 the said Timmareddi got agreement cancelled with accused No.1 with respect to the same property. It is contended that, that being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 in collusion with accused No.1 and others got filed O.S.No.17/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, praying for specific performance of directing accused No.1 to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement. That being the state of affairs, respondent No.2 herein has filed a private complaint as against the petitioner and two others alleging that accused No.1 in collusion with petitioner and accused No.3 have cheated respondent No.2 with dishonest intention to induce the complainant to disburse, pay and release an earnest amount for the execution of agreement of sale. The Magistrate has mechanically accepted the said private complaint and referred the complaint under Sec. 156(3) of Crimial P.C. for investigation to respondent No.1.