Karnataka High Court
Sri Shiva Shetty vs Hunsur Town Police on 17 September, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION Nos.26616-26617 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Shiva Shetty
S/o Sri Kulla Shetty,
Aged about 80 years,
President,
Adarsha Vidya Samsthe,
Having its registered office at
No.125, Gavadagere Village,
Hunsur Taluk-571 105,
Mysuru District and having
its Working office at Ranganatha Extension,
Hunsur Taluk-571 105,
Mysuru District,
R/at Thondalu Village,
Hunsur Taluk-571 105,
Mysuru District.
2. Sri. Shankar. S
S/o Sri Kulla Shetty,
Aged about 42 years,
Secretary,
Adarsha Vidya Samsthe,
Having its registered office at
No.125, Gavadagere Village,
Hunsur Taluk-571 105,
Mysuru District and
WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016
2
having its Working office at
Ranganatha Extension,
Hunsur Taluk-571 105,
Mysuru District,
R/at No.5624, 2nd Cross,
2nd Stage, Vijayanagar,
Mysuru-570 017. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. M.S. Parthasarathi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Hunsur Town Police,
Hunsur,
Inspector of Police.
Mysuru District-570001.
2. Sri. Shivanna,
Age:40 years,
Block Education Officer,
Hunsur Taluk,
Mysuru District-570001. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP for R-1;
R-2 served)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C
praying to quash the complaint dated:17.04.2016 as
submitted by R-2 vide Annexure-A and FIR in Crime
No.129/2016 dated:17.04.2016 registered thereon by R-1
vide Annexure-B for the offence made penal under Section
2(a) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property
Act, 1981 and Section 447 of the IPC, and stay all further
proceedings in pursuance thereof.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016
3
ORDER
The present petitioners who claims themselves to be the President and Secretary of Adarsh Vidya Samsthe, Gavadagere Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District, an educational institution, respectively, have prayed for quashing of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent police, which is registered in Crime No.129/2016, for the offences punishable under Section 2(a) of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and Section 447 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The summary of the complaint, a copy of which is at Annexure-A, is that the Block Education Officer of Hunsur Taluk, is the complainant and in the said complaint, he has stated that Adarsh Vidya Samsthe of Gavadagere Village, of which the present petitioners are said to be the President and Secretary respectively, is WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 4 an aided school. As such, the salary to the staff and all other facilities are being granted by the Government. The Managing Committee of the school is under the obligation to provide infrastructure to the school. However, on 19.5.2015, the management of the school partially demolished the school building and caused obstruction to the academic activities and created disturbance among the students, teachers and the parents. In that regard, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions and the Block Education Officer, visited the school and decided that in the interest of the students of the school and at the request of the parents of the students, the closure of the school was not an advisable decision and the same was communicated to the Managing Committee. As such, the Managing Committee gave an undertaking on 2.6.2015 stating that they would continue running in the very same building. In that regard, on 2.6.2015 and 8.6.2015, a WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 5 complaint was also lodged with the police. The request of the Managing Committee for shifting of the school to other location was returned with an endorsement that they have to submit such a proposal in accordance with law and shifting of the building would be only after obtaining prior permission from the department.
3. That being the case, the present petitioners herein, joined by the other Trustees of the Managing Committee, partially demolished the school building on 17.4.2016 without any prior permission from the Education Department. The said complaint was registered by the complainant-police for the above said offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions taken up in the memorandum of writ petition submitted that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the school building which has been given by WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 6 him on lease to run the school. According to the petitioners, the lease period has already come to an end. It is also the case of the petitioners, as well the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a new building is already been built and necessary permission has been sought by making an application for shifting of the school to the new building. However, no permission has been granted till today.
Finally stating that by a bare reading of the complaint, the alleged offences could not make out a prima facie case learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing the petitions.
5. Even according to the petitioners, there is no denial of alleged incident of partial demolition of the school building which is alleged in the complaint as said to have been taken place on 12.4.2016 by none else than the present petitioners, joined by other Trustees.
WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 7 The petitioners although justified their alleged action of demolition stating that the lease period has been expired and that the school has ceased functioning and further a new building is also available for shifting of the school, without going into much detail in that regard, suffice it to say and at this stage that merely because a lease period has been expired, it does not grant any right to any alleged lessor to demolish the premises without due notice to the lessee/occupant and without following the due process of law.
6. In the instant case, admittedly, no prior permission from the concerned department was obtained by the petitioners for demolition of the building. No permission was accorded to them for shifting the school. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the school Managing Committee with due permission from the Education Department, had WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 8 handed over the vacant possession of the premises to them. Thus, in the absence of these requirements, the unilateral alleged act of the petitioners of demolition of the entire school building cannot be said to be a justifiable act.
7. A perusal of the complaint and also the letter by petitioner No.1 as a President of the school to the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is at Annexure-S, goes to show that in the earlier point of time, the petitioners have removed the roofing sheet of the school without any permission. That means, the alleged act of entering the school premises and committing the act of demolition or damage of the property has been a repetitive act on the part of the petitioners.
8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged offences are also not made out, is also unacceptable, for the reason that the WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 9 offences alleged in the FIR are the one punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 2(a) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. Section 447 of Indian Penal Code speaks about criminal trespass. When according to the petitioners, the said property which is alleged to be under the ownership of petitioner No.1 is said to have been leased to an educational institution to run the school, without the permission of the said lessee, the petitioners entering the said school premises, may result into a criminal trespass and further, after trespassing into the property, causing loss or damage to the said property, has resulted into an act of mischief.
9. Thus, at this stage, it can be noticed that the FIR makes out a prima facie case for further investigation to be made in the matter. Merely because the said school is said to have been closed, would not be WP.Nos.26616-26617/2016 10 a ground for ignoring the alleged criminal act which is said to have been taken place while the school was running in the premises. As such, I do not find any reason to allow the petitions.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/