Karnataka High Court
Sudhakar Nagappa Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 101961 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101961 OF 2021 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. SUDHAKAR NAGAPPA NAIK
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. MATHADKERI, KODKANI, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
2. DAYANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. MATADKERI, KODKANI, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA
3. UMESH NAGAPPA NAIK
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCCN. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. MATHADKERI, KODKANI, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
4. SMT. SUMITRA W/O DAYANANDA NAIK
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCCN. COOLIE WORK,
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER
R/O. MATHADKERI, KODKANI, KUMTA,
VN Location:
BADIGER DHARWAD
Date:
2022.04.18
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
11:48:02
+0530
5. SMT. KALPANA W/O UMESH NAIK
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCCN. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. MATHADKERI, KODKANI, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANOOP G DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 101961 of 2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KUMTA P. S
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
580 008.
2. SMT. REKHA W/O DAYANANAD NAIK
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCCN. SERVICE IN AGR. DEPT.
R/O. BADA, KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET AND
ISSUANCE PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO
5/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 IN CC NO.1 IN KUMTA P.S. CRIME
NO.34/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC COURT, KUMTA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 506, 504, 147, 143, 149, 148, 323, 354, 324, 448 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 448, 354, 324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC alleging that there is a civil dispute between the parties in respect of land bearing Sy.No.72/2 measuring 7 guntas and the suit was decreed in favour of Smt.Lakshmi Nagappa Naik and agitated by decretal of the suit, the petitioners - accused criminally trespassed into -3- CRL.P No. 101961 of 2021 the house of the 2nd respondent and abused her and complainant's witnesses in filthy language and also outraged the modesty of the 2nd respondent.
2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners - accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, the FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent as an after thought by giving a criminal texture so as to harass the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners and the various contentions raised by the petitioners require to be considered after full pledged trial.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that admittedly there is a dispute in respect of easementry right over the land in question and the -4- CRL.P No. 101961 of 2021 jurisdictional Civil Court has decreed the suit in favour of mother of the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that the petitioners
- accused agitated by decree passed in favour of the mother of the 2nd respondent committed the aforesaid offences. The charge sheet material discloses the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners and at this stage, a mini trial cannot be held as to whether the dispute is purely civil in nature or not. The various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require to be considered after full pledged trial and at this stage, this Court cannot interfere with the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate when the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners. Hence, this petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
Liberty is reserved to the accused to raise all the contentions at the time of framing of charges. It is needless to say that the learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by this order and take a decision on the available material on record.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm