Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mirle Varadaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6687 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Sri Mirle Varadaraj
S/o Late Boregowda
Aged about 57 years
Darshan Mirle
Residing at No.544
5th Main Road
Kengeri Satelite Town
Bengaluru-560060.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior counsel for
Sri Srinivas Rao S.S., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Rajarajeswarinagar Police Station
(CCB OCW Squad)
Bengaluru-560 049
Rep by its: State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Muniramaiah
S/o Late Gali Hanuma
2
Aged about 58 years
R/at Kommaghatta Village
Beside Prasad Farm
Sulikere Post
Bengaluru-560 060. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1
R2 is served, but unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.337/2018
(CIS No.1483/2018) dated 10.12.2018 registered by the
Rajarajeswari Nagar Police Station, the written information
dated 10.12.2018 and entire proceedings against the
petitioner who is accused No.1 for the offence
P/U/S.420,447,465,468,471,504,506 R/w Section 34 of
IPC and under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending on the file
the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71).
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that the Sy.No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas of land was acquired by him through the partition deed and he was in 3 possession and cultivation of the subject land and the petitioner-accused by creating false documents got effected the survey sketch and podhi in his name in respect of the subject land fully knowing that the 2nd respondent belonged to scheduled caste community. It is further alleged that on 11.3.2018 at about 2.00 p.m., the accused along with the rowdy elements threatened him with dire consequences and also tried to assault him and when he tried to stab him, at that time, accused no.1 by referring to his caste, abused him in filthy language. The police registered FIR for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 and also under Sections 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.
2. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior. Counsel for Sri. Srinivas Rao S.S., appearing for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 4 11.3.2018. However the FIR was lodged after more than eight months from the date of the alleged offence without offering any plausible explanation, which clearly shows that the FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent as an after thought with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against the petitioner-accused. He further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature which is evident from the suit in O.S.No.3923/2015 filed by the sisters of the 2nd respondent for permanent injunction against the petitioner-accused in respect of the subject land. He further submits that the survey sketch and the podhi effected in the name of the petitioner-accused was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Joint Director of Land Records, which culminated in dismissal of the petition and thereafter the present FIR was lodged by 2nd respondent. Hence he submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and placed reliance on the decision of apex court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020)10 Section 710.
5
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the allegations made in the FIR lodged by the 2nd respondent clearly discloses the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused and at this stage the same does not warrant any interference and the allegations made in the FIR requires to be investigated.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, he has remained absent. In respect of the subject land, the sisters of the 2nd respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.3923/2015 and in the said suit the order of temporary injunction was granted against the petitioner- accused which was challenged before this court in MFA.No.2257/2016 and this court had stayed the operation of the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the sisters of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter the 2nd respondent challenged the survey sketch and also the 6 podhi and also the sub-division effected in favour of the petitioner-accused in respect of the subject land before the Joint Director of Land Records. The Joint Director of Land Records by order dated 29.8.2018 dismissed the petition filed by the 2nd respondent confirming the survey sketch and sub-division effected in favour of the petitioner- accused in respect of the subject land. It is only thereafter respondent no.2 lodged the FIR on 10.12.2018. Though the alleged incident has taken place on 11.3.2018, the FIR was lodged after more than eight months from the date of the alleged incident without offering plausible explanation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh -vs- M.Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582, at para 30 has held as follows:
''30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of 7 deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.''
6. Hence, the FIR was lodged as an after thought with an intention to circumvent the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records confirming the sketch and sub division in favor of the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the property.
7. The filing of the suit by the sisters of the 2nd respondent and also the challenge to the revenue sketch and the sub-division effected in favour of the petitioner- accused which culminated in dismissal of the petition clearly establishes that the allegations made in the FIR arises out of dispute relating to the title between the parties in respect of the subject land. The apex court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) has held as under:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act 8 unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste."
8. Although the offences are covered under the SC/ST Act, pre-existing dispute being civil in nature between the parties arising on account of possession over the property would not disclose an offence under the Act.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, but however given a criminal texture and it would be an abuse of process of law if investigation 9 is allowed to be continued. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.337/2018 registered by the Rajarajeshwari Police Station is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd