Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

H Vishwanath vs State Of Karnataka By on 6 December, 2018

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

                CRL. P. NO. 5963/2017


BETWEEN:

H.VISHWANATH
S/O. LATE H.VENKATANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.2511, 26TH CROSS,
17TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE,
NEAR BDA COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-70
                                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI VISHNUMURTHY, ADV.)


AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
       MADIVALA POLICE STATION
       R/P BY SPP HIGH COURT
       OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01

2.     V.CHANDRASHEKAR (SHEKAR POORNA)
       MAJOR
       R/AT NO.103, 1ST BLOCK,
       1ST STAGE, JANAPRIYA
       LAKE VIEW APARTMENT,
       KODICHIKKANAHALLI,
       BANGALORE - 560 076
                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II;
SRI. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON - R-2)
                            2




      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN .C.C.NO.15923/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III
A.C.M.M., BENGALURU (CRIME NO.2408/2015 OF
MADIVALA POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
406, 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF III A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

Heard Shri. Vishnumurthy, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri. I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II for the State and Shri. V. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate for respondent No.2.

2. Complainant-respondent No.2 registered FIR No.2408/2015 on 31.12.2015 in Madivala Station for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 218, 471, 420, 468, 467 of IPC contending that he has purchased apartment bearing No.103 in 'Janapriya Lake View Apartment'.

3. Complaint averments allege that there are deviations in construction of apartment and apartment 3 building has been built by encroaching 'Rajakaluve' (rain water drain).

4. Amongst other allegations, complainant has filed the instant complaint, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 166, 218, 471, 420, 468, 467 of IPC. After investigation police have filed charge sheet.

5. Petitioner in this proceeding has challenged the criminal case pending before the learned Magistrate.

6. Shri.Vishnumurthy, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that averments made in the complaint are false. The complainant, on an earlier occasion had filed a similar complaint, in respect of which police had filed a 'B' report. Therefore, prima facie, false complaint has been filed and consequently charges contained in the charge sheet are also frivolous.

4

7. Sri.V.Chandrashekar, complainant-party in person submits that apartment building has been built by encroaching 'Rajakaluve'. Proceedings are already pending before the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2011, in L.G.C.(P) No.42/2016.

8. He further submits that residents including the respondent have received notice from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to vacate the premises as there has been deviation in construction of the property. He is a retired person and has invested his lifetime savings in purchasing the said property. In the circumstances, he prays that petitioner be brought to justice.

9. Undoubtedly, the police filed have charge sheet. It is the specific case of complainant that the apartment building has been built by encroaching 'Rajakaluve'. Proceedings are pending before the Special Court dealing with encroachment of public property. 5 The municipal authority namely, the BBMP has issued notices to the residents to vacate the flats on the ground that building is constructed on encroached property.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a case to quash the criminal proceedings by exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.

12. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to move the learned Magistrate and urge the contentions raised in this petition while seeking discharge. Liberty as sought for is granted.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE DR