Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9096 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SMT.ANITHA
W/O K.N.MUNIRAJU
AGED 32 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/AT MANJUNATHASWAMY NILAYA
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
COLLEGE ROAD M.V.EXTENSION ,
HOSAKOTE BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION
HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2
2. SRI RAJANNA.K.M.,
S/O MUNIBASAVEGOWDA
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/O KEMBALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT.M.V.THANUJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.810/2017 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, FOR AN
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 149, 114, 323, 504, 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
***
3
ORDER
The second respondent and counsel remained absent, inspite of the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2018 granting time to the counsel for the second respondent to assist the Court. On the said day, it is made clear that, if the respondent's counsel do not appear before the Court, the matter will be heard and disposed of.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C.No.810/2017 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, for an offence punishable under Sections 143, 149, 114, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The charge-sheet discloses that one Rajanna.K.M., Son of 4 Munibasavegowda has lodged a complaint before the Police stating that; on 14.06.2016 in the morning at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant and his wife, Jagadambika had been to the property of one Muniyappa and Muniraju (other accused persons in the case) who were constructing a house in their property, at that time, the petitioner herein/accused No.3, Advocate for the said Muniyappa and Muniraju was also present and they all came together and the accused No.3 asked the complainant to show any order of the Court as not to put up any construction by Muniyappa and Muniraju. It is further alleged that, the other accused persons Muniyappa and Muniraju have abused the complainant and his wife with filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. The accused No.3 who was also present there stated that, Muniyappa and Muniraju can construct the 5 house in the property and she will take care of the said construction. Except that, nothing has been alleged against the petitioner herein. Even on perusal of the statement of the witness recorded by the Police, except the above said allegations, nothing has been stated that the Advocate has provoked the other accused persons for the purpose of committing other offences by the said Muniyappa and Muniraju.
4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn my attention to the civil proceedings between the parties, which are the certified copies of the proceedings of the Civil Court. It is seen from those records that, the complainant K.M.Rajanna is also a party as one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.442/2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote. They have filed a suit against 6 some of the accused persons by name Muniyappa and Muniraju along with other defendants. Initially, on 18.02.2015, the Court has granted an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining defendants No.7 and 8 from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property. But subsequently, the said order, which was granted for a limited period has not been extended, ultimately, on 26.07.2016, the plaintiffs have filed an application for withdrawal of the suit under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court has passed an order permitting them to withdraw the suit.
The learned counsel has also produced the certified copy of the affidavit filed in support of the said sapplication wherein it is stated that the properties, which were allotted to one Eshwaraiah-defendant No.4, which is the suit schedule property was sold in favour 7 of defendants No.7 and 8, i.e., Muniyappa and Muniraju and they have also constructed a house by encroaching upon the property of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they filed a suit comprehensively for declaration and consequential reliefs. It also clearly establishes the possession of Muniyappa and Muniraju by virtue of the sale deed as observed by the Civil Court. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, the Advocate might have gone to the place for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is any order passed by any other Court restraining Muniyapa and Muniraju from putting up of any construction in their property. In that context, the complainant has made the Advocate also as a party even without making any allegation as to what type of provocation or abatement she has done in so far as the other accused persons are concerned. In the above said circumstances, on 8 complete reading of the entire charge-sheet papers, it is a false allegation that has been made that she was also present and provoked the other accused persons, but no such specific overt acts are available in the statements of any witness and also in the complaint, as to what exactly the words used by accused No.3 to provoke the other accused persons except, asking the complainant to produce any order granted by the Court in their favour. Except that, nothing has been alleged. Therefore, in my opinion, on overall reading of the entire charge-sheet, nothing is there to show that this Advocate has actually provoked or instigated any other accused persons to commit such an offence. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, there are no allegations against the petitioner, which are sufficient to constitute any offence against the petitioner. Therefore, it is a fit case where the Court can exercise 9 the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the entire proceedings in so far as accused No.3 is concerned. Hence, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.810/2017, which is pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote and all the civil proceedings therein in so far as the petitioner is concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 149, 114, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are hereby quashed.
However, the Trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the matter against the other accused persons, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh