Karnataka High Court
G. Muralidhara vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 2694 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2694 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
G. MURALIDHARA
S/O T M GANGAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT SERVICE
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.24,
1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR,
KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO.29 CROSS, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BY MAGADI POLICE STATION,
MAGADI CIRCLE, RAMANAGAR
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. B.N. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.648, 12TH CROSS,
-2-
CRL.P No. 2694 of 2018
5TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI NAGENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2017
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND
JMFC, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA IN PCR.NO.88/2017 THEREBY
REFERRING THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT/POLICE FOR
INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND HAS CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.246/2017 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/MAGADI
POLICE STATION ALLEGING COMMISSION OF OFFENCE UNDER
SECTIONS 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 418, 420 OF IPC INSO FAR AS
THE SAME RELATES TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.5 and other accused have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The charge against the petitioner - accused No.5 is that, by wrongly describing the boundaries of the property including the property belonging to the defacto complainant, he filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the competent Authority permitting the defacto complainant to divert the land belonging to him for non-agricultural purposes. The learned Magistrate -3- CRL.P No. 2694 of 2018 took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. The present petition is filed by the accused No.5.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused No.5 would make the following submissions:
i) The allegations made in the private complaint arise out of boundary dispute between the parties, and the criminal complaint was filed so as to circumvent the Revenue Authorities from fixing the boundaries.
ii) Even accepting the allegations made in the complaint, on the face of it, it does not constitute the commission of offences alleged against the accused No.5.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would make the following submissions:
i) The petitioner by wrongly describing boundaries of the land belonging to the complainant filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and obtained an order setting aside the order passed by the competent Authority diverting the subject land for non- residential purposes.
ii) The petitioner having admitted that he has no objection for conducting survey afresh, the Joint Registrar of Land Records set aside the sub-division and directed -4- CRL.P No. 2694 of 2018 the Authorities to re-survey in accordance with law and thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by deliberately describing the boundaries by including the properties belonging to the respondent No.2, and by misrepresenting before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, obtained an order setting aside the order of conversion in favour of the 2nd respondent, and thereafter the accused No.5 in collusion with his uncle has conveyed the property to a third person.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. The only allegation against the accused No.5 that in the appeal filed by him before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, he has deliberately included the property belonging to the 2nd respondent by wrongly describing the property and thereafter conveyed the property belonging to the complainant in favour of the third party. Admittedly, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the 2nd respondent took a specific contention that the petitioner herein wrongly described the boundary by including the property belonging to the 2nd respondent has filed the appeal. The said contention was -5- CRL.P No. 2694 of 2018 negated by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the same is impugned in writ petition No.42170/2016 and connect writ petition pending consideration before this Court.
6. The allegation made in the complaint having been negated by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the matter is pending consideration before this Court, the complaint filed at this stage against the accused No.5 is premature and impermissible, since the allegation made against the Petitioner arises out of the boundary dispute. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.294/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara, insofar as it relates to accused No.5 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM