DR. LAKSHMAN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 17-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
DR. LAKSHMAN
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1573-1575 of 2019)
OCTOBER 17, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.403, 406, 417, 418, 420, 506(B),
422, 120(B) – Appellant-complainant case that respondent-accused
entered into an agreement with appellant on 26.09.2012 to procure
70 acres of agricultural land in favour of appellant and received
an amount of Rs. 9 crores from him, however, respondents failed to
perform the contract in terms of agreement – It was alleged that
thereafter, they entered into another MOU dated 08.11.2012 with a
schedule indicating the survey nos., the respondent represented that
they were in possession of 70 acres of land and 30 acres of converted
land and promised to transfer the same to the appellant – It was
alleged that respondents had already sold the land covered by the
survey nos. 115 and 117 and later appellant was forced to sign the
sale deed as a confirming party of the same survey nos. which were
executed subsequently – Also, Respondents had issued two cheques
as a security for the amount of advance paid by the appellant and
when the said cheques were presented, it was alleged that account
of which cheques were issued was closed – Appellant alleged
cheating, fraud and criminal conspiracy in his complaints –
Respondents filed petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaints
filed by the appellant – High Court held there was novation of
contract on 08.11.2012 – High Court also disbelieved the schedule
attached to the agreement on the ground that additional pages were
not paginated – Further, High Court quashed the proceedings on
the ground that appellant had already filed a Civil suit for recovery
of sum of Rs.9 crores and complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments
– On appeal, held: So far as pagination of the schedule is concerned,
in a petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. it is fairly well settled that it is not
permissible for the High Court to record any findings, wherever
there are factual disputes – Further, mere filing of the suit for
recovery of money and complaint filed u/s.138 of Negotiable
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 480
480
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
Instruments Act by itself was no ground to quash the proceedings in
the complaints filed by the appellant – When cheating and criminal
conspiracy are alleged against the accused, for advancing a huge
sum of Rs.9 crores, it is a matter which is to be tried, but at the same
time the High Court has entered into the disputed area, at the stage
of considering the petitions filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. – Whether there is
novation of contract or not and the effect of such entering into a
contract is a matter which is required to be considered only after
trial but not at the stage of considering the application u/s. 482
Cr.P.C. – High Court committed error in allowing the petitions filed
u/s.482 Cr.P.C. – Accordingly, order of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  It is not seriously disputed by the parties with
regard to the entering of the agreements for procuring the land
in favour of the appellant and respondents have received the
amount of Rs.9 crores by way of demand drafts and cheques.  It
is the specific case of the appellant that there are schedules
mentioned to the agreements as per which respondents have
agreed to procure the land covered by Survey Nos.115 and 117
apart from other lands.  In a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
it is fairly well settled that it is not permissible for the High Court
to record any findings, wherever there are factual disputes.
Merely on the ground that there is no pagination in the Schedule,
the High Court has disbelieved such Schedule to the Agreements.
It is the specific case of the appellant that the lands covered by
Survey Nos.115 and 117 were sold even prior to the first
agreement, as such respondents have committed an act of
cheating.  It is also the specific case of the appellant that two
cheques were issued by respondents-accused by way of security
for the amount of Rs.9 crores which is advance but the account of
such cheques was closed even prior to entering into the
Agreement itself.  The second complaint filed by the appellant is
self-explanatory and he is forcefully made to sign the sale deed
which were executed subsequently for the lands covered by
Survey Nos.115 and 117.  Mere filing of the suits for recovery of
the money and complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.