Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Vatagal vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 23 August, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228
CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200333 OF 2021
(482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200336 OF 2021
(482(CR.P.C)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P.NO.200333/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH VATAGAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O V.PURUSHOTHAM RAO,
OCC: THEN COMMISSIONER CMC,
Digitally signed SINDHANOOR-584128
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA RAICHUR DISTRICT
UDAGI PRESENTLY WORKING AT
Location: High THE COMMISSIONER,
Court Of
Karnataka GADAG-BETAGERI,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
GADAG-582101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SINDHANOOR TOWN POLICE STATION,
SINDHANOOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228
CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
KALABURAGI-585106
2. SRI. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O BASAPPA MABRUMKAR,
OCC: ADVOCATE,
NEAR KUDAL SANGAM TALKIES,
KUSTAGI ROAD, SINDHANOOR,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT, COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATION IN CRIME
NO.64/2020 (P.C.NO.145/2020) REGISTERED BY SINDHANOOR
TOWN POLICE STATION, RAICHUR DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 119, 120, 166, 167,
211, 218, 219, 220, 291, 420, 417, 441, 425, 427, 447, 504,
506, READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND NOW THE
CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, SINDHANOOR, RAICHUR DISTRICT,
IN CRL. P. NO. 200336/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH VATAGAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O V.PURUSHOTHAM RAO,
OCC: THEN COMMISSIONER CMC,
SIDHANOOR-584128
RAICHUR DISTRICT
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
THE COMMISSIONER,
GADA-BETAGERI,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228
CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021
GADAG-582101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SINDHANOOR TOWN POLICE STATION,
SINDHANOOR,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
KALABURAGI-585106
2. SMT. RADHABAI W/O BASAPPA MABRUMKAR,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
NEAR KUDAL SANGAM TALIKIES, KUSTAGI ROAD,
SINDHANOOR, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584128
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REPORT, COMPLAINT
AND INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.44/2019
(P.C.NO.125/2019) REGISTERED BY SINDHANOOR TOWN
POLICE STATION, RAICHUR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 441, 425, 427, 291, 325, 447,
504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND NOW THE CASE IS
PENDING ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC, COURT SINDHANOOR, RAICHUR DISTRICT,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228
CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) Criminal Petition No.200333/2021 filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [(528 (BNSS)], seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.64/2020 arising out of P.C.No.145/2020 registered by Sindhanoor police station, Raichur district, for the offence punishable under Sections 119, 120, 166, 147, 211, 218, 219, 220, 291, 420, 417, 441, 425, 427, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein.
Whereas, Criminal Petition No.200336/2021 filed by the very same petitioner/accused No.1 under section 482 of Cr.P.C.[(528 (BNSS)], seeking to quash FIR in Crime No.44/2019 arising out of PC.No.125/2019 registered by Sindhanoor police station, Raichur district, for the offence punishable under Section 441, 425, 427, 291, 325, 447, -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both cases.
3. The case of the respondent No.2 in his private complaint filed in PC No.145/2020 he is said to be a practicing Advocate at Sindhanoor and they are having site in CMC No.11, where he put up compound wall, the petitioner being accused/CMC Commissioner said to be demolished the compound wall without issuing notice and taking proper law course and caused loss and also trespassed into property and demolished. He has lodged complaint to the police as well as before the Superintendent of Police, they have not taken any action. Hence, private compliant filed before the Magistrate and same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In turn an FIR has been registered by the police in Crime -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 No.64/2020 for the various offences, which is under challenged.
4. Whereas Criminal Petition No.200336/2021 the case of respondent No.2, who is said to be mother of the very same respondent No.2/Krishna s/o Basappa, who is complainant in PC.No.145/2020, where the said Krishna himself is an Advocate filed a private complaint on behalf of his mother-Radhabai in P.C.No.125/2019 by taking contention that his father is having a site in the same survey number where the CMC Commissioner/accused No.1 said to be demolished the compound wall and caused the loss, thereby the mother has filed complaint to the police, but the police have not entertained the compliant. Hence, they forced to file private complaint before the Magistrate under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the same was referred to the police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. In turn the police have registered FIR in Crime No.44/2019 for the various offences. Being aggrieved with the registering the FIRs, the CMC Commissioner, who is -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 accused in both cases filed these petitions before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has seriously contended both the complaints filed by the respondent No.2 mother and son on the same cause of action for demolishing the compound wall by trespassing into the property of the Basappa, who is father of the complainant in P.C.No.145/2020 and husband of complainant in P.C.No.125/2019. On the same property there are two complaints filed by the same complainant, who is Advocate. The first complaint has been filed he himself is Advocate and another compliant was filed by his mother for the same allegations for demolishing the compound wall. Subsequently, and one more complaint has been filed by himself on the same cause of action for demolishing the compound wall. A private complaint has been filed. Both the offences are one and the same and in order to harass the petitioner these two complaints were filed by the respondents. He further contended that the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 complainant have encroached the public property, the road and put up compound wall by encroaching the drainage and beyond the drainage about 4ft. Therefore, the petitioner being the CMC Commissioner taken the demolition drive for widening the road, at that time, the compound wall was demolished.
6. It is also contended that prior to that a notice was given to Basappa-father of the complainant and husband of another complainant. The notice was served on him. They have not given any reply. After taking the law course the demolition order was passed. Accordingly, the encroachment of the public property beyond the drainage has been demolished. He has discharged his official duty for taking demolition drive that cannot be considered as offence under the IPC. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings or registering FIRs it amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for allowing the petitions.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021
7. The respondent No.2-complainant in both cases has seriously contended that the police have not taken any complaint. Therefore, they forced to file complaint before the Magistrate and got it referred. There is no notice given to the either respondent No.2 in both cases or Basappa was not served and he was already dead. Notice was not served on them. Such being the case, without notice taking demolition and causing loss amounts to criminal offence. Therefore, the matter required for investigation and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also contended that both the complaints has pertaining to the same property for demolishing drive. Therefore, both cases cannot be entertained by the same Magistrate. Accordingly, prayed for passing order.
9. On perusal of the records, especially both the complaints which reveal that the complainant-Krishna is son of Basappa. The said Basappa was owner of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 property. The second complainant is Radhabai-mother and as per her complaint Basappa was alive at that time and demolish drive taken by the petitioner and subsequently he has died. There was already a complaint filed by Radhabai in respect of same property for demolishing the compound wall by trespassing into the private property of the complainant. On the very same cause of action the son of the complainant Radhabai also filed another complaint and cleverly filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. complaint and got it referred to the police, and in turn the Police bound to register the FIR in view of the referring the matter by the Magistrate.
10. On perusal of the order sheet while referring the matter both the complaints to the police, the learned Magistrate not applied his mind simply received the complaint and referred to the police, whether the complainant followed the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivatsava and Another V/s State of Uttar Pradesh And Others reported in
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 (2015) 6 SCC 287 in respect of filing the complaint under section 154(1), 154(3) of Cr.P.C. to the higher police officer and without making the gist of the complaint before referring to the police, the learned Magistrate blindly passed the order even without knowing whether against whom the complaint has been filed. The Trial Court or the Magistrate ignored or neglected to see whether the accused was CMC Commissioner or not and whether the case is made out for referring the case to the police for quashing the FIR or taking cognizance to record sworn statement simply referred the matter under section 156(3) which amounts to abuse of process of law. The very reference itself is not correct.
11. That apart the accused persons none other than the CMC Commissioner was taken the demolition drive for widening the road and he said to be issued the notice and thereafter demolished the compound wall. The respondent-complainant not given any reply and filed any objections to the Town Panchayat. Such being the case,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021 once the notice has been issued to the father of the complainant and after show cause notice was also issued and thereafter the widening programme has been taken by the petitioner/accused, who is CMC Commissioner. Such being the case he is discharging official duty or demolishing drive for widening road. If at all the petitioner not violated any encroaching of the drainage and he could have filed his objections and contest the matter where the a Tahsildar also deputed who was prepared the report and sketch about encroachment has been identified, thereafter, demolition drive was taken place.
12. Such being the case, filing the criminal complaint taking action against the public servant who discharging official duty not permissible. If at all any violation or demolition without proper recourse of law, the complainant can approach the Civil Court for seeking compensation or damages, if he has not encroached the drainage or public property on road.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6228 CRL.P No. 200333 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 200336 of 2021
13. Such being the case, I am of the view that continuing proceedings or investigation in filing the complaint against the petitioner/CMC Commissioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The criminal proceedings and FIR in both cases in Crime No.64/2020 arising out of PC No.145/2020 and Crime No.44/2019 arising out of PC No.125/2019 against the petitioner/accused are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1 CT:SI