Karnataka High Court
R. Ranganath vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5429 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. R. RANGANATH
S/O D. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. R.H. RAJU
S/O D. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. KENCHALINGAPPA,
S/O SANNANINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR COURT COMPLEX,
MARUTHI NAGAR, HIRIYUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 144.
4. R. MUKHESH
S/O R. RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
5. D.R. SHIVANNA
S/O D. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
6. R. SURYAPRAKASH
S/O D. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
THE PETITIONERS NO.5 AND 6 ARE
2
R/AT BANNIMANTAP ROAD,
SANTHE BEEDI, HIRIYUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 144.
7. THIPPAMMA
W/O R. RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
THE PETITIONERS NO.1, 2, 4 AND 7 ARE
RESIDING NEAR EXCISE OFFICE,
VEDAVATHI NAGAR, HIRIYUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 144.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIRIYURU TOWN POLICE,
HIRIYURU TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE
GENERAL OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. JAYAMMA
W/O D.THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR APMC MARKET,
VEDAVATHI NAGARA, HIRIYURU CITY,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 144.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADV. FOR R-2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.288/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, REGISTERED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 447, 427, 504, 506 READ
WITH 149 OF IPC AFTER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND
PERUSING THE SAME BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners state that they are the owners of property bearing Khata No.3397, Assessment No.2454 (old site No.283/2) situated at Babbur village, Near N H - 4 Hiriyur Town Chitradurga District. They lodged a FIR with the jurisdictional police alleging that the respondent No.2 along with her son, husband, her relatives and henchmen trespassed into their property and by using excavation machine demolished the building of petitioner No.7. The jurisdictional Magistrate registered a case against respondent No.2 and others in Crime No.209/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 504, 506, 447, 149 of IPC.
4
2. The 2nd respondent as a counter blast lodged a FIR against the petitioners alleging that petitioners criminally trespassed into her land and abused them with filthy language and threatened her with dire consequence. The jurisdictional police registered the case in Crime No.210/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC. The police after investigation submitted `B' report to which the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate has registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by petitioner No.7 against the 2nd respondent for criminally trespassing into their land and further causing damage to the property by using excavation machine. He further submits that the jurisdictional Civil Court had decreed the suit directing the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for 5 having damaged to the property. Hence, he submits that the cognizance taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate may be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner No.7 had lodged the FIR in respect of property bearing Katha No.3397, Assessment No.2454 (old site No.283/2) situated at Babbur village, Near N H - 4 Hiriyur Town Chitradurga District. However, the FIR was lodged for criminal trespass into the property bearing No.2728 which is not the subject matter in O.S.No.5/2012. Hence, he submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners criminally trespassed into the property belonging to the respondent No.2 and caused damages.
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the State reiterates the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
6. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6
7. It is undisputed that the petitioners had lodged FIR registered as Crime No.209/2012 against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC for allegedly trespassing into land belonging to the petitioners on 28.08.2011. The respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR on the same day against the petitioners-accused alleging that they had criminally trespassed into his land on 28.08.2011 at 6.30 p.m. The FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners-accused. The pendency of the suit between the parties at the time of lodging of FIR clearly implies that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature.
8. The wife of the petitioner No.1 had lodged the FIR in Crime No.220/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC alleging that respondent No.2 has forged the municipal records by creating the documents in respect of site No.64 which is alleged to be belonging to the respondent No.2.
9. The Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the respondent No.2 before the learned 7 Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC against the respondent No.2.
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture for wrecking vengeance and revengeful intent. If the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued against the petitioners, it would be abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.288/2015 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyuru, Chitradurga District is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM\HR