Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (2) TMI 870

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a clean chit to accused Nos. 2-4. In our opinion, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the alleged offence against the accused No.1, the appellant herein and that the complaint has been made to harass the accused No.1 to come to terms by resorting to criminal process. As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17.05.1999 after a lapse of 11= years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by the respondent No.1 is not at all maintainable at this distance of time. It is the specific case of accused No.1 that he has not executed any agreement to sell or received any advance payment. In our view, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.PC and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riminal Revision Petition No. 932/2000 dismissing the said petition filed by the appellant-herein (accused No.1). 3. The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are narrated herein below: Respondent No.1 is the complainant. According to the complaint, the appellant herein had executed an agreement to sell dated 25.12.1988 in respect of the house premises bearing No.120, K.H.B. Colony, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore in favour of the wife of the complainant Renukamma and as per the said agreement a sum of ₹ 1,25,000/- was paid as advance out of the total consideration of ₹ 2,50,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It is stated in the complaint that the second accuse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e offence against the accused persons and punish them in accordance with law in the interest of justice and equity. This complaint was numbered as PCR No. 453/1999 dated 17.05.1999. 5. The appellant denied the execution of such an agreement or received any advance from the complainant or his wife. 6. The IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the office to register the case as PCR and refer the same to the sub-inspector Kamakshi Palya P.S. for investigation and submit a report as per Section 156(3) of Cr.PC by 27.08.1999. This order was passed by the Magistrate on 17.05.1999 (Annexure-P2). On 04.08.2000 the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order: ORDER Perused the record. Cognizance of the offence alleged .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was heard thereafter and the complainant after keeping quiet for nearly 3 years filed private complaint under Section 200Cr.PC before the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore on 17.05.1999. The learned Magistrate on the same date directed his office to register the case as PCR and referred the same to the local police for investigation and to submit a report as per Section 156(3) Cr.PC. A charge sheet was filed on 04.08.2000 by the police against the appellant/accused No.1 only for offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.PC and issued summons to the accused/appellant herein. Aggrieved by the aforesaid process order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the Magistrate, the appellant acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inal offence under Section 420 IPC. The Magistrate, in our opinion, has not considered the report filed by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.PC judicially. Irrespective of the opinion of the police, the Magistrate may or may not take cognizance under Section 190(1) of Cr.PC. In the instant case, as could be seen from the records, that the police has given a clean chit to accused Nos. 2-4. In our opinion, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the alleged offence against the accused No. 1, the appellant herein and that the complaint has been made to harass the accused No. 1 to come to terms by resorting to criminal process. 11. As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17.05.1999 after a lapse of 11 years and, therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates