Karnataka High Court
Sri. Erappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8913 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ERAPPA
S/O MADHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O SASALU GRAMA
KIKKERI HOBLI
K.R.PETE THALUK - 571 426.
MANDYA DISTRICT
2. K.N.PARAMESHWAR
S/O LATE NANJUNDASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS
R/O SUBHASH NAGAR
BEHIND S B M, K R PETE - 571 426
Digitally
signed by MANDYA DISTRICT.
SUMA
Location:
HIGH COURT 3. SHIVASWAMY
OF S/O LATE DODDASHETTY
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/O SUBHASH NAGAR
K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. K.S.NAGESH BABU
S/O LATE SIDDHABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
-2-
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016
K.R.PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. K.S. SURESH KUMAR
S/O LATE SIDDHABASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O 3RD CROSS, SMS PASS
BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
L I C AGENT , K R PETE - 571426
MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. K.S. MANJUNATH @ MANJANNA
S/O LATE SIDDHABASAIAH @ SIDDALINGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O SUBHASH NAGAR
SIDDHALINGESHWAR PETROL BUNK
K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
7. T.R. RAMESH
S/O S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O TEGADURU
CLASS-I CONTRACTOR
TENDEKERE POST
K R PETE TALUK - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
8. K.S. CHANDRAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O T V S SHOWROOM
CHANNARAYANAPATTAN ROAD
K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
9. NATESH
-3-
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016
S/O PARASHIVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O NANDINI MILK PARLOUR
MAIN ROAD, K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
10. K.S. RAJESH
S/O SHIVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O PARLE BISCUIT AGENCY
BEHIND M.D.C.C. BANK
K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
11. KRUPASHANKAR
S/O K.N.PARAMESHWAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O SUDHASH NAGAR
BEHIND S.B.M, K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
12. K. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRA
S/O LATE K KEMPAIAH @ KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O B ROAD, K R PETE - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
13. M.S.GANGADHAR
S/O SANGAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O MADUVINA GONDI
K.R.PETE TALUK - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
14. MAHADEV @ MADAPPA
-4-
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O JOKANAHALLI BOOKANAKERE HOBLI
K.R.PETE TALUK - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
15. APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O JOKANAHALLI BOOKANAKERE HOBLI
K.R.PETE TALUK - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA.B.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY K.R.PETE TOWN POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKAR BEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. K.S.REVANNA
S/O SIDDASHETTI
AGE:MAJOR
BASAVANAGUDI BEEDI
K.R.PETE TOWN - 571 426
MANDYA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.A.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-5-
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C.,
KRISHNARAJPETE IN C.C.NO.292/2016 DATED 1.7.2016 AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.292/2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.J. AND J.M.F.C.,
KRISHNARAJPETE, BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged an order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajpet (henceforth to be referred as Trial Court) taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 447, 504, 323, 114, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC against the petitioners herein and registering C.C.No.292/2016 and issued process against them.
2. The respondent No.2 herein submitted a report to the respondent No.1 alleging that the land bearing Sy.No.233/1 of Krishnarajpete Town was his ancestral property. He claimed that he had filed a suit O.S.No.296/2009 for declaration and for deletion of the -6- CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016 name of Mr.D.S.Basavaraja Swamy in the revenue records. He claimed that he had submitted a representation before the Taluk Office for entering his name in the revenue records and proceedings were still on before the revenue authorities. He claimed that he had put up a hut in the aforesaid property. He alleged that on 06.08.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. when he and his brother Somashekar, Krishna and his mother Mahadevamma were repairing the hut, the accused persons illegally trespassed in to the land and challenged them as to why he was putting up the hut. He alleged that he was assaulted and abused by the accused and threatened to remove the hut forthwith. In the meanwhile, one of the accused exhorted the other accused to put the hut on fire while the other accused, Mr.Nagesh Babu encouraged the other accused to break his limbs. He also alleged that his mother was dragged around. With these and other allegations he alleged that all the accused attempted to dispossess him and his family members from the land in question. Based on the report of the respondent No.2, the jurisdictional -7- CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016 police registered Crime No.154/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 504, 323, 114, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer found that the land bearing Assessment No.2701/B of K.R.Pet Town Municipality was allotted to Akhila Bharath Veershaiava Mahasabha and that the records stood in its name. He also found that against the respondent No.2 and his family members, a case in Crime No.152/2012 was already registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 447 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed, court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 447 read with Section 34 of IPC and registered C.C.No.249/2012. He found that as a counter blast, the present case was filed by the respondent No.2 against the accused. He found that there were no eye witnesses to the incident alleged by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 failed to produce the documents in support of his case. He also found that Akhila Bharath -8- CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016 Veershaiava Mahasabha had earlier lodged a complaint on 18.10.2012 against Smt. Parvathamma W/o Krishnaswamy, who had encroached into the property bearing assessment No.2701/B and that a case in Crime No.189/2012 was filed for the offences punishable under Section 447 of IPC and after investigation, the cognizance was taken in CC No.324/2012. Based on these findings, the investigating officer filed a 'B' report. The respondent No.2 filed a protest petition. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the respondent No.2 as and another witness and marked documents as Ex.C1 to C12 and passed an order taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 504, 323, 114, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and issued process to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents placed on record by the respondent No.2 did not make out any offence against the petitioners. He submitted that Ex.C1 was the report submitted by the -9- CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016 respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1. Ex.C2 to C5 were the publications in the local newspaper about the alleged incident. Ex.C6 to C9 were the photographs of the hut belonging to the respondent No.2, while Ex.C10 was a complaint lodged against the respondent No.2, his brother and mother by the accused No.4/petitioner No.4 herein, while Ex.PC11 and C12 were the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.296/2009. He submits that the Trial Court did not consider the fact that the charge sheet was already filed against the respondent No.2 and his family members and that the present report lodged by the respondent No.2 before the responded No.1 was a counter blast. He submitted that the trial court could not have taken into account the paper publication to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. He submits that except the photographs at Ex.C6 to C9 there was nothing on record to indicate that the accused had committed any offence against the respondent No.2 and his family members. He further invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of the witness for the
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016respondent No.2 and submitted that this witness was ill disposed, in view of the charge sheet already filed based on a complaint lodged by the petitioners. He therefore submits that there was no credible material on record to establish that the accused were prima-facie involved in offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 447, 504, 323, 114, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. He submits that since the respondent No.2 has obtained a judgment and decree in O.S.No.296/2009, it is open for him to execute the decree but he cannot give the case a criminal flare by lodging a report against the accused. He submits that the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.296/2009 as well as the property bearing No.2701/B were different. Further he contended that the decree passed in O.S.No.296/2009 was only against petitioner No.1 and 4. He therefore submits that the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence deserves to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that despite obtaining a decree of
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016declaration and perpetual injunction, the petitioners had taken law into their hands by obstructing the possession of respondent No.2 and illegally trespassing into their property. He submits that the question whether property bearing Sy.No.233/1 of Krishnarajpete Town and the property bearing municipal assessment No.2701/B were one and the same, was considered and decided in the suit and therefore the petitioners cannot again challenge the right of the respondent No.2 on the same ground. He submits that the fact of assault of the respondent No.2 and his family members was spoken by a witness before the Trial Court and therefore, there is adequate material to take the cognizance of the offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of law.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
6. The Trial Court while taking cognizance of the offences based on Ex.C1 to C12 and the statement of
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016respondent No.2 and the witness, must have considered the basis on which the Investigating Officer submitted his 'B' report. The fact that the petitioners represented an organization which claimed right, title and interest in respect of property bearing Assessment No.2701/B cannot be ignored. The fact that a case in C.C.No.249/2012 was already registered against the respondent No.2 and his family members, wherein they were accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 504 of IPC cannot also not be ignored. The Trial Court without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, blindly proceeded on the assumption that the claim of the respondent No.2 in respect of the property was decreed in O.S.No.296/2012, unmindful of the fact that the property claimed by the petitioners herein, concerned a municipal property, while the property claimed by the respondent No.2 is to a revenue land. The Trial Court must have applied its mind while considering the issue of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 143,147, 447, 504, 323, 114, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016
7. A perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any such application of mind by the trial court but indicates that the trial court had cursorily considered the material placed and assumed the commission of offences though there was no adequate material on record.
8. The respondent No.2 claims that the suit filed by him for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction concerning land bearing Sy.No.233/1 of Krishnarajapete Town was already decreed in is favour. If that be so, it was open for the respondent No.2 to execute such decree in accordance with law. The alleged fact of interference by the petitioners gave him a cause of action to take such steps as provided under law including arrest of the petitioners by executing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.296/2009.
9. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC. Krishnarajpete taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 8913 of 2016punishable under Sections 143,147, 447, 504, 323, 114, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC deserves to be quashed.
9. Hence, this petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.292/2016 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajapete Town, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY