Karnataka High Court
Hari B R vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1589 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. HARI B.R.
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O LATE DR. B.N. RANGA IYENGER,
R/AT NO.19, 2ND MAIN,
ANANDA MURTHY KRUPA,
NEAR KATHRIGUPPE,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560085.
2. HARISH RAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O VASUDEVA RAO,
R/AT FLAT NO B-3, 1108,
GOKILAM COMPLEX,
DODDAKALLASANDRA,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560062.
Digitally ...PETITIONERS
signed by (BY SRI. M.R.C MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
SUMA
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU POLICE,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. C.V. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE S. VENKATAKRISHNAIAH,
R/AT NO.9, "SRINIDHI",
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
3RD PHASE, 4TH BLOCK,
100 FEET RING ROAD,
-2-
CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020
OPP. UDBHAVA HOSPITAL,
BENGALURU-560 095.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R.D., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT No.1;
SRI. UMASHANKAR F. MEGUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.30046/2019 REGISTERED BY THE
CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 READ WITH SECTION
120-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND THE CASE IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners being the accused in C.C. No.30046/2019 pending trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') have filed this petition challenging the proceedings initiated against them.
2. The respondent No.2 claims to be the owner of a residential flat at Gokulam apartments/Gokulam Complex, Doddakallasandra, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. It is stated -3- CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020 that the said flat was rented out to tenants by him through Nestaway. He claimed that he was paying the monthly maintenance to the Gokulam Apartments Owners' Association (for short, 'the Association') and that every year during May or June, he used to receive an intimation from the Association that he would get a discount of 10%, if he paid the monthly maintenance charges annually, upfront. He claimed that he was paying the monthly maintenance every year for the period from 01.06.2014 to 30.03.2017 and was enjoying the 10% discount offered by the Association. He claimed that in respect of the maintenance charges for the period from April 2017 to March 2018, he had paid the sum of Rs.46,899/- by a cheque bearing No.100046 on 30.03.2017. However, he received an email from the Association on 30.01.2018 stating that there was a due of Rs.239/- and the invoice disclosed that the discount of 10% was not applied towards the maintenance charges paid by the respondent No.2. However, when confronted, the respondent No.2 was advised to correspond with the petitioner No.2, who was then the President of the Association. Consequently, respondent No.2 wrote a letter to the President of the Association on 08.02.2018. Thereafter the respondent No.2 is -4- CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020 stated to have made several visits to the Association and addressed several letters to get his grievances resolved. He claimed that the letters written by him were not replied by the Association but the invoices for the maintenance amount were sent to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 claimed that prior to the issues relating to maintenance, the Association was consulting him for legal help to recover Rs.20,00,000/- that was siphoned off by an office manager and certain office bearers of the Association and also to appear for them in various Courts if required and that the respondent No.2 had sent an invoice for the consultation fee to the petitioner No.2. Despite repeated reminders, petitioners had failed to pay him the consultation fee. The respondent No.2 alleged that the accused were sending emails to the other owners claiming that the respondent No.2 had defaulted in payment of maintenance charges. He alleged that the petitioner No.1 thereafter threatened the tenant in the apartment and were attempting to disconnect the electricity and when confronted, petitioner No.1 allegedly claimed that he was doing so on the instruction of petitioner No.2 to ensure that the tenant is vacated. He alleged that the Association was threatening to disconnect the -5- CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020 electricity and water connection to the flat on the ground that the respondent No.2 had failed to pay maintenance charges of Rs.14,000/-. In addition, petitioner No.1 is stated to have threatened respondent No.2 not to demand his consultation fees and to withdraw the invoice issued by him. He further alleged that the petitioner No.1 had threatened that he along with petitioner No.2 who had sufficient political clout and the backing of police and rowdy elements with the backing of ISKCON and its management would make sure that the respondent No.2 is dispossessed of his property and that his life and limbs would be harmed.
3. Based on this information, the Police registered Crime No.3/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 420, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent No.1 took up investigation and after concluding the same, filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court in terms of the Order dated 20.12.2019, took cognizance of the said offence against accused Nos.1 and 2 / petitioners and issued process.
-6-CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the accused / petitioners submit that the case made out by the respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature and the respondent No.2 has misused the process of criminal courts to recover his consultation fee and is attempting to dodge the payment of maintenance charges.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 however submits that the respondent No.2 is threatened and harassed for demanding his professional fee and the petitioners have exposed the respondent No.2 to immense difficulty.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have perused the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 as well as the charge sheet filed against the petitioners.
7. It is a matter of concern that when a charge sheet is challenged before the Court, the petitioners are bound to place the entire charge sheet before the Court and not merely the head of the charge sheet. Be that as it may, the information furnished by respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 definitely indicates that it is an attempt made -7- CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020 by him to get a resolution of the payment of maintenance charges to the Association and also an attempt to recover his consultation fee, which is certainly civil in nature. There is no material procured by the prosecution to establish the charge sheet under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has definitely misused the process of law by lodging a frivolous information before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 without any application of mind has filed a charge sheet based on the self- serving statement of respondent No.2. The Trial Court has also not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has issued process though the charge sheet made out that the dispute between the parties was a civil dispute that had to be resolved before the Civil Court and the respondent No.2 had deliberately given it a criminal twist to prosecute the petitioners.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.1 has filed an additional charge sheet to include section 120B of IPC and that the petitioners have not challenged the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the -8- CRL.P No. 1589 of 2020 petitioners have not challenged the additional charge sheet is of no consequence since the additional charge sheet was in respect of the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. Since no case is made out for the offence under Section 506 of IPC against petitioners, the question of invoking Section 120B of IPC does not arise. In that view of the matter, contention urged by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is rejected.
In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C. No.30046/2019 registered by respondent No.1 and pending trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33