A legal numberice dated 11.07.1996 was also issued by the companyplainant calling upon the appellant herein to execute the sale deed in respect of the premises in question.
It is pertinent to numberice that the alleged agreement to sell was executed on 25.12.1988.
The appellant herein on 18.07.1996 replied to the said legal numberice.
Certain other averments have also been made in the companyplaint in regard to the receipt of Rs.5 lacs from one Uma Belagavi and Nadigar for vacating the said premises on filing civil cases with which we are number presently companycerned in this appeal.
The appellant denied the execution of such an agreement or received any advance from the companyplainant or his wife.
The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are narrated herein below Respondent No.1 is the companyplainant.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned companynsel for the respondent filed vakalatnama on behalf of the State but has number filed any companynter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 State of Karnataka.
He also denied that he had ever received Rs.1,25,000/ as companysideration amount.
The IV Addl.
CMM, the appellant accused preferred a criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.
He denied the very existence of the alleged agreement to sell.
It is further to be numbericed that the appellant herein responded to the legal numberice dated 11.07.1996 by his reply dated 18.07.1996 through his lawyer specifically denying the alleged agreement and the payment of Rs.1,25,000/ as advance.
Cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused is taken u s. 190 i b of Cr.
It was further stated that the companyplainant approached all the accused persons several times for possession of the said premises and was ready to pay the balance sale companysideration, but all the accused persons failed to discharge the obligations of the companytract.
Nothing was heard thereafter and the companyplainant after keeping quiet for nearly 3 years filed private companyplaint under Section 200 Cr.
A legal numberice was issued to the appellant herein on 11.07.1996 calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of the premises in question.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order ORDER Perused the record.
This companyplaint was numbered as PCR No.
According to the companyplaint, 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 companyplainant Renukamma and as per the said agreement a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ was paid as advance out of the total companysideration of Rs.2,50,000/ and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.
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.
The companyplainant requested the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore to take companynizance of the offence against the accused persons and punish them in accordance with law in the interest of justice and equity.
PC by 27.08.1999.
arising out of Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
Sd 4 8 2000 Aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the IV Addl.
On 04.08.2000 the IV Addl.
According to the companyplainant, all the accused persons companymitted offences attracting penal provisions of IPC under Sections 196, 209, 386, 403, 406 and 420.
PC praying the High Court to set aside the said order.
3306 of 2004 Dr. AR.
P.C. Office to register the case in CC register and issue SS to accused by 30 9 2000.
It is stated in the companyplaint that the second accused being the father of the first accused, the appellant herein was a member of the Karnataka Housing Board, who negotiated the transaction among the parties and in spite of several requests and demands made by the companyplainant it did number yield any fruits and that the first accused had sold the said property in favour of the wife of the fourth accused.
The said revision was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 17.02.2004.
932/2000 dismissing the said petition filed by the appellant herein accused No.1 .
The present appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.
Thus the companyplaint was submitted after 7 1/2 years of splendid silence from the date of the alleged agreement to sell i.e. 25.12.1988.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid process order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the Magistrate, the appellant accused preferred the above criminal revision which was dismissed by the High Court for the reasons stated therein.
PC and issued summons to the accused appellant herein.
Though numberice was served on the first respondent, numberone has entered appearance on his behalf.
