Karnataka High Court
Basappa Shankreppa Patil vs Sanyavva W/O Mahadev Channal on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.100129/2015
BETWEEN :
1. BASAPPA SHANKREPPA PATIL
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. HANAMANTH BASAPPA PATIL
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. SHEKHAR BASAPPA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
4. PARAPPA BASAPPA HALLADMANI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
5. IRAPPA BASAPPA BALAGAR
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
6. SHRISHAIL BASAPPA BALAGAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
7. SMT. PARAVVA W/O BASAPPA BALAGAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
8. SMT. NEELAVVA D/O BASAPPA BALAGAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
9. PANDIT LAXMAN NIDONI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2
10. MUTTAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
11. KALLAPPA MANTUR
(KALLAPPA CHENNAPPA SANKESHWAR)
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
12. SAGAREPPA CHAIRMAN
(SAGAREPPA BASAPPA CHAIRMAN BIRADAR PATIL)
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
13. MARUTI TELI (MARUTI SATTEPPA TELI)
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
14. SHRISHAIL CHENNAPPA PATIL
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
15. YELALPPA CHENNAPPA PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
16. KANTHU SHENKRAPPA PATIL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
17. MAANINGAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA ADEPPANNAVAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
18. PARAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA ADEPPANNAVAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL THE PETITIONERS NOS.1 TO 18 ARE
R/AT NEAR AGASIBAGIL, MUDHOL RAOD
MAHALINGPUR, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALKOT.
19. MALLAPPA BASAPPA TELI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O CHIMMAD, TQ:JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.
.... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)
3
AND :
SMT. SANYAVVA W/O MAHADEV CHANNAL
R/O CHIMMAD, TQ:JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.L.BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BANHATTI IN C.C.NO.1152/2014 (P.C.NO.60/2014)
DATED: 18.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 144, 324, 338, 441, 354,
382, 394, 502(2) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
: ORDER :
The petitioners being accused Nos.1, 3 to 20 in C.C.No.1152/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court at Banahatti, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 passed in the private complaint in P.C.No.60/2014 filed by the respondent herein against accused Nos.1 to 20 for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 324, 338, 441, 354, 382, 394, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of the averments made therein and in the 4 sworn statement recorded by the Court, directing the accused to appear before the Court in C.C.No.1152/2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent herein as complainant filed private complaint in P.C.No.60/2014 against accused Nos.1 to 20 for the above said offences. It is alleged that one Mr.Sangappa Mirji is the owner of R.S.No.201/1 measuring 19.23 acres. Out of the same, land measuring 4 acre was sold in favour of Gurusiddappa Talatippi, who is the brother of the complainant. An area measuring 38 guntas of land was in possession of the complainant and her brothers. The complainant filed the suit in O.S.No.51/2014 before the trial Court against accused No.1 and others seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties.
3. The complainant stated that she along with her children was residing in the shed that was put up in the said land. On 04.06.2014 at 7.30 p.m, accused 5 No.1 along with 50-60 goondaas, illegally tresspassed over the land, destroyed her shed, thrown the household articles and assaulted the complainant and her children. When Sangavva Mirji and Manavva Mirji came to the spot and intervened, accused Nos.1 to 5 abused them in filthy language and criminally intimidated to break their limbs. Accused Nos.1, 8, 9 and 11 have abused the complainant in filthy language and tried to strangulate her neck. They have snatched gold Mangallya chain and slapped her. The accused were intoxicated with liquor and committed the high handed acts. Accused Nos.1 had brought the tractor and took away the household articles. All the accused have assaulted the complainant and her children and stolen the movables worth of Rs.20,000/-. The accused have also snatched gold chains worn by Manavva Mirji and Sangavva Mirji.
4. The complainant stated that a complaint in this regard was filed with Banahatti police. But since 6 the accused are influential, police have not registered any criminal complaint. On 06.06.2014, the complainant went to the Superintendent of Police, Bagalkot and filed a complaint and also stated that she knows the names of only 20 accused and therefore, mentioned their names. Since no action was taken by the police. The private complaint was came to be filed requesting the trial Court to register the case and to initiate legal action against all the accused.
5. The trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses, passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offences against all the accused for the above said offences, registered C.C.No.1152/2014 and issued summons to the accused to appear before the Court.
6. Accused Nos.1, 3 to 20 have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal 7 proceedings initiated against them, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by filing this petition.
7. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.C.Hukkeri., for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri.N.L.Batakurki., for respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a civil dispute between the parties. It is the contention of the complainant that about 50-60 persons have came and committed the offences. The names of all those 50-60 persons are not mentioned in the complaint. No specific overtact is alleged against any of these petitioners. On the other hand, the allegation is only against accused Nos.1, 8, 9 and 11. Even though, a private complaint was filed, the police held the spot inspection and issued the endorsement as per Annexure-C stating that the allegations made in the complaint are far from truth and that a suit in O.S.No.51/2014 is filed by the complainant and it is found that it is the 8 accused, who are in possession of the said land. Since, the civil dispute is pending between two parties, they are required to abide by the decree of the Civil Court. The trial Court without considering any of these facts and circumstances, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences without application of mind.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that, when the petitioners approached this Court, an interim stay of further proceedings was granted and therefore, still C.C.No.1152/2014 is pending for consideration. Filing of the private complaint and taking cognizance of the offence by the trial Court, is in clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, petitioners pray for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent opposing the petition submitted that even though, there are civil disputes between the parties, serious 9 allegations are made against the accused by the complainant. The complainant stated that there were 50-60 persons, who were accompanying the accused No.1. She could name accused Nos.1, 8, 9 and 11. She specifically stated that she has not in a position to name the other accused. The sworn statements of the complainant and two other witnesses were recorded by the trial Court. After being satisfied with the prima-facie materials, cognizance was taken. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Since, the further proceedings is stayed by this Court, C.C.No.1152/2014 is still pending for consideration. As there are serious allegations made against the accused, the petition is liable to be dismissed authorizing the trial Court to proceed with the matter. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
11. Perused the materials on record.
10
12. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as under:
"Whether the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Banahatti in P.C.No.60/2014, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 144, 324, 338, 441, 354, 382, 394 and 506(2) of IPC against the petitioners herein and registration of C.C.No.1152/2014 is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?"
13. My answer to the above is in the 'Negative' for the following:
: REASONS :
14. It is the contention of the complainant as per the complaint that, the property in dispute, which is bearing R.S.No.201/1 belongs to her forefathers and she is residing in a shed put up on 38-guntas of land. She also stated that she has filed a suit in O.S.No.51/2014 seeking partition and separate 11 possession. Complainant specifically stated that on 04.06.2014 at 7.30 p.m, accused No.1 along with 50- 60 goondas illegally trespassed into the land, destroyed the hut in which the complainant along with her children were residing and assaulted them. When Sangavva Mirji and Manavva Mirji intervened in the matter, the accused have abused and assaulted them. It is stated that the accused have assaulted the complainant and also snatched the gold Mangalya chain. Similarly, the chains which were worn by Sangavva Mirji and Manavva Mirji were also snatched. Accused No.1 took away the household articles in his tractor. The accused have outraged the modesty of complainant and her two daughters.
15. If the private complaint is read as a whole, it refers to the highhanded act committed by the accused with the common object of committing the crime. Even though, there is reference to accused Nos.1, 8, 9 and 11 in specific, the act committed 12 refers to about a mob containing 50-60 persons, who were lead by accused No.1. If the averments made in the private complaint remain uncontrived it will definitely make out the criminal offence on the part of accused No.1 and all those persons who are responsible for such an act.
16. The materials on record discloses that the complainant had filed a complaint with Jamakhandi police, which was not registered as a FIR. On the other hand, Annexure-C is the endorsement dated 10.06.2014 issued by Jamakhandi police stating that on the basis of the complaint an inquiry was held and it was found that the allegations made in the information is far from truth and further since the suit in O.S.No.51/2014, the complainant is advised to abide by the decree of the Civil Court.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a detail inquiry was held on the basis of the complaint that was filed by the complainant 13 with Jamakhandi police and found it was a false complaint. Annexure-C/Endorsement do not refer to any such investigation or visiting to the spot as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Without holding any such investigation or preliminary enquiry, the police issued Annexure-C stating that the allegations are false. I do not find any basis to form such an opinion by the police as could be made by the Annexure-C. Moreover, simply because O.S.No.50/2014 is pending before the Civil Court, the police cannot avoid intervening in the matter when there a specific allegations regarding commission of serious criminal offence as stated above.
18. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It refers to the sworn statements of the complainant and two other witnesses. It also taken into consideration that the specific allegations are made against accused No.1 and other 50-60 goondas while referring to accused 14 Nos.1, 8, 9 and 11 with regard to the commission of the various offences. The impugned order also refers to the statement of the complainant that she had visited the police station on the very date and filed the complaint and that the same was not entertained as the accused were influential. The complainant also appears to have stated that she had gone and met the Superintendent of Police, Bagaliot on 06.06.2014 who deployed a Dy.S.P to initiate action. But in spite of that, no action was initiated. The impugned order also refers to two photographs and copy of the information submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bagalkot along with the sworn statements of the complainant and two other witnesses.
19. If all these materials are taken into consideration, it could be safely concluded that there are prima-facie materials for having committed the offence by the accused. It is at the initial stage, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of 15 the criminal proceedings by setting aside the impugned order. As I have already noted the contents of the private complaint and discussions held by the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order disclose that, prima-facie materials are placed before the Court and the learned Magistrate applied his mind and took cognizance of the offence. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceeded to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM/-