Karnataka High Court
Smt Thimakka vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.830 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SMT. THIMAKKA
W/O. LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY MS. SAGARIKA, FOR SRI.CHETHAN JADHAV,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PATTANAYAKANAHALLI P.S.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. H.S. KANTHARAJU
S/O. SIDDLINGAPPA
AGED 43 YEARS, HOSALLI VILLAGE
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA HCGP FOR R.1;
SRI UMESH, FOR SRI.R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES FOR
R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL. PETITION
2
BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2011 IN
C.C.NO.1013/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE
(J.D) AND JMFC, SIRA THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF
OFFENCES AND ISSUING DIRECTIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF
SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED BY 13.09.2011, THEREBY
CHARGING THE PETITIONER OF OFFENCESS PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 120-B,441,420, 504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC
AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The second respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and one Sri.H.S.Rajanna with the first respondent
- Police alleging that the said H.S.Rajanna sold the property belonging to the complainant, though he had no right over the same and when the complainant tried to plough the land belonging to him, the said H.S.Rajanna and the petitioner objected to him ploughing the land, quarreled with him and abused him in filthy language and gave a life threat and warned him not to enter the lands. It culminated a charge sheet being filed against the said H.S.Rajanna and the petitioner herein accusing them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 441, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC in C.C.No.1013/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior 3 Division), JMFC, Sira. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.
2. The said H.S.Rajanna is accused No.1 and petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the aforementioned charge sheet.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a bonafide purchaser of the land for a valid consideration and if H.S.Rajanna has cheated the second respondent, she is not a party to it and the allegations contained in the charge sheet does not constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC as against her. Similarly, it is submitted that there is a civil dispute pertaining to the property, it resulted in filing of O.S.No.256/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), JMFC, Sira, wherein the entire rights regarding the said property was not granted in favour of the second respondent herein. Aggrieved by it, the second respondent preferred R.A.No.8/2009, which was allowed in his favour and aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 herein preferred RSA No.352/2011 before this Court and the same is pending and an interim order staying the operation of the order 4 passed in R.A.No.8/2009 is passed and it is contended that it is not completely established as to who is in possession of the property as of now and under the circumstances, the petitioner herein cannot be accused of being guilty of criminal trespass as contemplated under Section 441 of IPC. It is further submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet even presuming to be true show that the petitioner only tried to prevent the second respondent from ploughing the land and never intentionally insulted the second respondent with an intend to prevent breach of peace as contemplated in Section 504 of IPC. It is also contended that she has not committed an offence as contemplated in Section 506 of IPC and for the said reasons, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1013/2011 be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned Advocates for the respondent No.2 as well as the State submits that the allegations in the charge sheet does constitute the offences as alleged and prays for dismissal of the petition. 5
5. The allegations in the charge sheet is that accused No.1 sold the property belonging to the second respondent to the petitioner herein and thereby complainant is cheated. Even if the allegations are believed to be true, if at all anybody is guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC, it would be accused No.1 and not the petitioner. With regard to criminal trespass, there is a dispute with regard to in whose possession the property is there and an interim order in favour of accused No.1 in RSA No.352/2011 is passed in this regard. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner herein has committed an offence under Section 441 of IPC and allegations do not constitute an offence with regard to criminal trespass and further allegations in the charge sheet reveal that the petitioner herein verbally abused the second respondent with a view to prevent him from ploughing the land and not with an intend to provoke breach of peace as contemplated under Section 504 of IPC. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the charges against the present petitioner insofar as it relates to Sections 420, 441 and 504 of IPC will have to be quashed. Though the dispute between the petitioner 6 and the second respondent is essentially civil in nature, the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet shows that if the allegations against the petitioner is proved, she would be guilty of criminal intimidation.
6. Thus, for the said reasons, the charge against the petitioner insofar as it relates to Section 506 of IPC is not quashed. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER i. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1013/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Sira, insofar as it relates to offences under Sections 420, 441 and 504 of IPC are hereby quashed.
ii. Regarding the offence under Section 506 of IPC, petition is rejected.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 7 In view of disposal of the main petition, interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE VMB