SURESH versus MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 16-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SU RESH 
A 
\I. 
MAHADEVAPPA SHIV APPA DA NANNA VA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 16, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.} 
a 
~ 
Criminal Procedure Code, 197 3-Section 190(/)-Complaint of cheating 
filed after 11 years of alleged transaction-Maintainability of-On facts, held, 
complaint not maintainable on account of inordinate delay on the part of c 
complainant himself-Moreover, allegations as contained in complaint were 
of civil nature and did not disclose commission of alleged offence of cheating-
Hence, Magistrate not justified in taking cognizance of offence. 
Grievance of complainant-respondent was that appellant had agreed 
to sell a house to his wife against which advance was paid to him. However, D 
appellant failed to discharge the contract and sold the house to wife of 
fourth accused. After eight years, complainant sent notice to appellant to 
execute the alleged agreement. Appellant replied to the notice denying the 
alleged agreement and the payment of advance. Three years thereafter, 
respondent filed a complaint. Police registered case against appellant under 
Section 420, IPC. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued E 
summons against which appellant preferred revision. High Court dismissed 
the same. Hence, the present appeal . 
.... 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court has passed the order in a mechanical F 
way without applying -its mind. A perusal of the complaint would show 
that the entire dispute raised by the complainant is based on the alleged 
agreement to sell entered into on 25.12.1988 nearly 11 years prior to the 
filing of the private complaint on 17.5.1999. The existence of any such 
agreement or any advance taken has been specifically denied by the G 
appellant by way of his reply dated 6. 7.1996 in response to the legal notice 
-
dated 11.7.1996 sent by the complainant through his lawyer. For nearly 3 
years from the date of reply, the complainant kept quiet before filing his 
complaint before the Magistrate. It is stated that even as per the police 
report, no offence is made out against accused Nos. 2-4. Despite this, the 
131 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A Magistrate issued process against accused Nos. 2-4 as well which clearly 
shows the non-application of mind by the Magistrate. A perusal of the 
complaint would only reveal that the allegations as contained in the 
complaint are of civil nature and do not primafacie disclose commission 
of alleged cri"minal offence under Section 420 IPC. The Magistrate, has 
B not judicially considered the report filed by the police. (135-B-DI 
2. In the instant case, police has given a clean chit to accused Nos. 
2-4. 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 
C resorting to criminal process. !he complaint was filed after a lapse of 11 Yz 
years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by the respondent 
No. I is not at all maintainable at this distance of time. It is the specific 
case of accused No. I that he has not executed any agreement to sell or 
received any advance payment. The complaint does not disclose the 
ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.PC and, therefore, this is a fit case for 
D setting aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court, 
of issuance of process and proceedings itself. (135-E-G; 136-AJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 308 
of 2005. 
E 
From the Ju.dgment and Order dated 17 .2.2004 of the Karnataka High 
Court in Crl. R.P. No. 932 of 2000. 
Mohan, V. Katarki and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Appellant. 
Sanjay R. Hegde, (NP) for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
The present appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 
G 17.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal 
Revision Petition No. 932/2000 dismissing the said petition filed by the 
appellant-herein (accused No. I). 
H 
The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are narrated 
herein below : 
--
. ·~· 
SURESH v. M.S. DANANNAVA [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 
133 
Respondent No. I is the complainant. According to the complaint, the A 
appellant herein had executed an agreement to sell dated 25.12.1988 in r~spect 
ofthe house premises bearing No.120, K.H.B. Colony, Agrahara Dasarahalli, 
Bang
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.