IN THE HIGH COURT OF K? RNATAKA. CIRCUIT BENCH .AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JUNE 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJULU CRL. PETITION NOs.10761 /2011 & 10762/2011 iP.1O7612pi1 BETWEEN B. VIJAYAKUMAR. 5/0 LATE B GUNDAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, 0CC: GENERAL MERCHANT, 2. JALIHAL SHIVAKUMAR, S/0 LATE JALIHAL GUNDAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, 0CC: GENERAL MERCHANT, BOTH ARE P/C): K2MBLI BAZAR. MULLANGI COMPOUND. BELLARY. NO\\ RESIDING U 0 NO )14 \\\RD NO 34 DEVANGAPET, 1-IOSPET, DIST. BELLARY PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADV.,) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS MANKI P.S REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT CIRCUIT BENCH BUILDING DHARWAD —580011. 2. SMT. ANUPAMA, W/O: H NARAYANAPPA. AGE: 39 YEARS, 0CC: NIRMAL ASSOCIATES, CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/O: BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE. HOSPET. TQ: HOSPET. BELLARY DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS PILED U/S 482 OP CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT. FIR, AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN PC NO 53/2010 (CRIME NO 177/2010 OF HOSPE’T IO\\\ PS) U/SS 415 419 120 468 471 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE PILE OP THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE )JR.DN.) & JMPC COURT. HOSPET. IN CRL.P.10762/2011 BETWEEN: B. VIJAYAKUMAR, 5/0 LATE B GUNDAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, 0CC: GENERAL MERCHANT, 2. JALIHAL SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE JALIHAL GUNDAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, 0CC: GENERAL MERCHANT, BOTH ARE R/O: KAMBLI BAZAR .MULLANGI COMPOUND. BELLARY NO\\ RESIDING T D No 214 \\ \RD NO 34 DEVANGAPET. HOSPET. DIST: BELLARY. PETITIONERS (BY SRi. GODE NAGARAJA, ADV.. AND I. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS MANKI P.S. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT CIRCUIT BENCH BUILDING, DHARWAD —580011. 2. BASAXVARAJ. S/C): GIRIYAPPA. AGE: 36 YEARS. 0CC: CONTRACTOR RIo 35 \\ARD NEAR B\POUJI SCHOOL HOSPET. TQ: HOSPET. DIST. BELLARY. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, HCGP.,i THIS CRIMINAL PETJTION IS FILED U S 482 OF CR.P C. SEEKING To QUASh THE COMPLAINT, FIR, AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.NO.54 2010 (CRIME NO.178/2010 OF HOSPET TOWN PSI U S 415, 419, 420, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IP( PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. COOL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, HOSPET ThESE CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLO\kING: COMMON ORDER Crl.P.No.10761/201 1 is filed seeking for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of PC No.53/2010 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.). JMFC. Hospet (Crime No.177/2010 of Hospet Police Station) for the offences under Sections 415, 419, 420, 468, 471 r/xv Section 34 of IPC. 2. Crl,P.No.10762/2011 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.178/2010 of Hospet town police station pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC. Hospet for the offences Under Sections 415, 419, 420, 468. 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 4 3. The subject matter involved in both the cases is similar. So by a common order the cases are taken up for consideration. 4. Learned advocate Sri.Gode Nagaraj for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have purchased the property for consideration from the owner of the property namely respondent No.2, while so, the respondent No.1 in each of these cases have initiated the proceedings contending that the vendor of the petitioners was in debt. Inspite of the knowledge of the debts, the property being purchased, complain the offence including cheating. 5. The narration of the happening would disclose that the transaction is civil transaction. There is no motive intention to cheat, Competent Civil Court has to decide. So initiation of the complaint by respondent No.2 in each of the proceedings is not 4— 5 sustainable in law. So pray for quashing of the proceedings. 6. The material facts probablise, the petitioners contend that they have purchased the property. The particulars referred to in private complaint would disclose, when the vendor was financially due to the public, the petitioners have purchased the property. The recitals in sale deed dated 9.3.2010 produced as Annexure ‘A’ in Crl.P.No.10762/2011 reveal that Kalakappa is a vendor, the petitioners are purchasers. The recital in the sale deed is that the vendor has no debts, there is no charge on the properties. So, he sells the properties in favour of the petitioners. The sale deed is dated 9.3.20 10. While so, the petitioners themselves have filed suit in OS.No. 158/2010 in the month of June 2010 seeking for permanent injunction. Written statement is filed in O.S.No.158/2010 on the file of 6 Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet by respondent No.2 Smt.Anupama on 25.08.20 10. It refers to the insolvency, petition being filed and the sale deed relied by the petitioners being challenged. During the course of this stand taken by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 refer to plaintiffs having the knowledge of the transactions of the vendor as petitioners were partners of Maruthi Finance Corporation run by Kalakappa. So contend that the sale is not a bonafide sale. So the happenings referred to by the materials produced by the petitioners would probabalise that in regard to the sale transactions claimed by the petitioners, they filed a suit for permanent injunction, the creditors of the vendor have filed insolvency. In this situation criminal proceedings being initiated contending that the creditors are duped by the actions of the petitioners. So, case requires recording of the evidence arid giving a finding. It is not a case as if atleast there is prima facie material to probahalise the case of the petitioners. So, if any interim order is granted by admitting the petitioners, it will have an impact in the proceedings initiated by the respective parties in the Competent Court of law before the JMPC. So, the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners is rejected. The petitions are without any merit, rejected. Sd/ JUDGE (111