Karnataka High Court
Sri Nandakumar.C vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30427
CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4869 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. NANDAKUMAR.C
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A NO.307, 9TH MAIN
3RD STAGE, MANJUNATH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPA HOLDER
SMT. C.S. LALITHA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560056
Digitally THROUGH ITS
signed by PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SUMA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location:
HIGH BANGALORE-560001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. RAVIKANTH N.,
S/O C. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/A NO.53/54,
GIDADAKONENAHALLI,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30427
CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
DATED 16.01.2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VTH A.C.M.M., AT
BENGALURU, QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.7/2017 DATED 16.01.2017
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - ANNAPOORNESHWARI
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 3(i)(ii), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(2), 3(1)(i) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND SECTIONS 34, 420, 447, 465, 468,
504, 506 OF IPC AND QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE
AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DATED 24.01.2018 BY THE V
A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU AND THE FILING OF THE CHARGE SHEET
IN C.C.NO.2475/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 504, 506 AND 507 OF IPC, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him in C.C. No.2475/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') pending trial before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The respondent No.2 submitted information in writing before the respondent No.1 on 16.01.2017 that his mother was the owner of a property in respect of which, -3- NC: 2023:KHC:30427 CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019 the accused had allegedly created fraudulent documents and were attempting to dispossess him and his mother. It was alleged that neither he nor any of his family members had executed any document in favour of the accused. However, the accused had in collusion with antisocial elements and revenue officers got their names entered in the record of rights in respect of the property. This, he alleged was an illegal act and an attempt to deprive a person belonging to scheduled caste, of his property. He further alleged that this illegal act came to his notice on 11.01.2017 at about 1.30 p.m. when the petitioner herein called him on his mobile phone (No.9980047775) from his mobile phone (No.9741980891) and allegedly abused respondent No.2 by taking his caste and also threatened to finish him off.
3. Based on the aforesaid information, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.7/2017 against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(2) -4- NC: 2023:KHC:30427 CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 447, 504, 506, 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and took up investigation. The respondent No.1 filed a charge sheet against the petitioner alone for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 507 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner as he was absconding. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said proceedings.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner had purchased site No.54 and the petitioner had purchased site No.53 both formed in Sy.No.5 of Gidadakonenahalli village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk under two separate sale deeds of even date i.e., 17.03.2006. In the meanwhile, a suit in O.S. No.244/2012 was filed by the mother of the respondent No.2 before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, where an ex parte -5- NC: 2023:KHC:30427 CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019 order of temporary injunction was granted and on the application of the mother of the petitioner, the same was vacated on 21.04.2012 which was challenged by the mother of the respondent No.2 before this Court in MFA No.5894/2012 which too came to be dismissed in terms of the Judgment dated 28.06.2012. The petitioner and his mother filed suit in O.S. No.8256/2012 for declaration that the sale deed executed by the father of respondent No.2 on behalf of owners of sites in question was null and void and not binding on them. The mother of the respondent No.2 thereafter struck upon a novel idea of getting the mother of the petitioner evicted by filing a petition for eviction in S.C. No.314/2015 before the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru against a stranger named Mr. M.Suresh and entered into a settlement with the said Suresh and thereafter, dispossessed the mother of the petitioner from the premises standing on site Nos.53 and 54. He submits that the mother of the petitioner thereafter had filed an application, I.A. No.1, in Execution petition No.1315/2015 for re-delivery of the possession of the said premises and -6- NC: 2023:KHC:30427 CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019 the Executing Court in terms of the order dated 23.04.2021, allowed the application with cost of Rs.10,000/- and directed re-delivery of possession of the said premises to the mother of the petitioner herein which again was challenged before this Court in CRP No.159/2021. This Court also dismissed the revision petition with cost of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the order dated 25.08.2021 and special leave petition in SLP No.19059/2021 was also dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the order dated 26.11.2021. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a resident of the United States of America (USA) and therefore, the offences alleged against him under Sections 504, 506 and 507 of IPC were not committed by him. He has also placed on record copy of the passport which indicates that the petitioner was never in India at the time when the alleged offence took place.
5. The respondent No.2 though served with notice of the petition has not entered appearance. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:30427 CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019
6. The learned State Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that there are allegations against the petitioner having threatened to kill respondent No.2 and therefore, the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses has filed a charge sheet and the Trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offence.
7. Having regard to the history of litigation between the petitioner and the mother of respondent No.2, it is quite possible that the respondent No.2 has attempted to misuse the law to make a wild allegation against the petitioner herein unmindful of the fact that the petitioner was not residing in India at the relevant point of time. The investigating officer has dropped all the other accused and has selectively filed a charge sheet against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was absconding, though the petitioner was residing in the USA. The facts stated above clearly indicate that the respondent No.2 has attempted to misuse law by filing a frivolous complaint and has abused the process of law. In that view -8- NC: 2023:KHC:30427 CRL.P No. 4869 of 2019 of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner deserves to be halted.
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.2475/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending trial before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.
9. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38