Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramakrishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29046
CRL.P No. 12301 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12301 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O SRI RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SRI JAGADISHA
S/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
3. SMT LAKSHMIDEVEI
W/O SRI SRINIVASA
D/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
4. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
ALL ARE R/AT NO.41/1
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
2ND CROSS, JANATHA COLONY
KARNATAKA MALAGALA, BENGALURU-560 091.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANNAPURNESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 091
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29046
CRL.P No. 12301 of 2022
2. SRI MADHUKUMAR RAJU
S/O LATE B K KANNAIAH RAJU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.83, 2ND MAIN
C I L LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR
R M V 2ND PHASE
BENGALURU-560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P THEJESH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. P B DIVAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.521/2020 (IS ARISING OUT
OF CR.NO.169/2019) OF ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR P.S.,
BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 448, 506 R/W
34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V A.C.M.M.
BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4, who are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 448, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, are before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is the owner of site bearing No.41, and the petitioners herein, who criminally trespassing into the subject property, are in possession of the same. When the defacto complainant questioned the illegal occupation of the subject property by the accused herein, at that time, he was threatened with dire consequence, and also a threat was given to do away his life. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.
-3-NC: 2023:KHC:29046 CRL.P No. 12301 of 2022
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are in possession of property bearing No.41/1, which was conveyed in their favour by the BBMP under a registered sale deed. He further submits that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, and in the said suit, an order of temporary injunction is operating against the defacto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, the charge sheet discloses that, the petitioners - accused, after criminally trespassing into the subject property, are in possession of the subject property, and the veracity of the allegation can be considered only at the time of trial, and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The defacto complainant claims to be the owner of the subject property, which was allotted to her vendor under the Ashraya Scheme. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners herein have illegally occupied the subject property. The petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the said suit, an order of temporary injunction is operating against the defacto complainant. The dispute is with regard to the identification of the property, which has resulted in lodging the FIR by the defacto complainant. The dispute as to whether the petitioners are in illegal possession of -4- NC: 2023:KHC:29046 CRL.P No. 12301 of 2022 the subject property is ceased before the Civil Court in OS No.8991/2019. The Trial Court, in the criminal proceedings, cannot go into the question as to whether the petitioners are in possession of the subject property bearing No.41 or No.41/1, and the same has to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional Civil Court.
7. The essential elements to constitute the commission of offence committing criminal trespass into the house property, must be with an intention to commit an offence. In the instant case, there is no allegation that, the petitioners herein criminally trespassed into the subject property with an intention to commit an offence. Hence, the essential elements to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC is conspicuously absent. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.521/2020 arising out of Crime No.169/2019 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM