Karnataka High Court
Mavireddy Chandra Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.100334/2021
BETWEEN :
1. LOKANATH RAO
S/O LATE NARASHIMAPPA,
AGE : 51 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O NEAR LAKSHMAMMA TEPLE,
NEAR SANNA MARKET,
ADHONI,
KARNOOL,
ANDRA PRADESH-518301.
2. VENKATESH
S/O LINGAPPA,
AGE : 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AMRUTHAPURA VILLAGE,
HALABASAVI MANDALAM,
ALURU,
KARNOOL,
ANDRA PRADESH-518301.
3. HARISH
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGE : 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AMRUTHAPURA VILLAGE,
HALABASAVI MANDALAM,
ALURU,
2
KARNOOL,
ANDRA PRADESH-518301.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(MOKA POLICE STATION)
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. SRINIVAS RAO
S/O SURYA RAO,
AGE : 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VADDARA NAGAPPA COLONY,
CONTONMENT,
BALLARI-583104.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.1.
SRI SANTOSH B.MANE, ADV. FOR R.2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.298/ 2020 (MOKA
P.S.CRIME NO.113/2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 447, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
: ORDER :
Though this petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.113/2018 of Moka Police Station, Ballari, now pending in C.C.No.298/2020 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Ballari ("the Trial Court" for short) for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.2 being the complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No.18/2018 before the Trial Court. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C" for short) to the 4 jurisdictional police. The FIR in crime No.113/2018 of Moka Police Station, Ballari, was registered for the above said offences. After investigation, the charge sheet was came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.298/2020, which is now pending for consideration. In the meantime, the petitioners being the accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them.
4. Heard Sri R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Praveen K.Uppar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri Santosh B.Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. There is serious dispute between the parties about the ownership of the properties. Petitioner No.1 5 being accused No.1 is the son-in-law of deceased Smt.Susheela who is the owner of the property in dispute. The said Smt.Susheela died on 14.03.2008 leaving behind her only daughter Smt.Kiranmai. Accused No.1 is the husband of the said Smt.Kiranmai. Learned counsel further submitted that there are in all four civil suits pending before the Civil Court relating to the property in question. In O.S.No.483/2018 filed by accused No.1/petitioner No.1 herein seeking cancellation of registered sale deed and for permanent injunction. The temporary injunction is granted in his favour restraining the complainant and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property in question. O.S.No.496/2018 was filed by the purchaser of the property i.e., complainant herein seeking declaration and injunction of his title on the basis of registered sale deed. O.S.No.497/2018 was filed by one of the purchasers against accused No.1/petitioner No.1 herein and O.S.No.478/2020 is filed by vendor seeking declaration of his title and for 6 injunction. During the pendency of these civil litigations, a false complaint came to be filed against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that, petitioner No.1 has lodged the first information against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.100839/2021 and two others which is registered in Crime No.243/2018 of Brucepet Police Station alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was came to be filed for the offence under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. The same was registered in C.C.No.655/2020 before the Trial Court. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 therein have concocted/fabricated the documents, forged the signatures and sold the property in favour of the purchasers who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case.
7
7. In the meantime, only to pressurize the petitioners a criminal complaint was came to be lodged in Crime No.113/2016 of Moka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 504, 447 323 read with Section 34 of IPC which is pending in C.C.No.298/2020, without any basis. When the title to the schedule property is in serious dispute and subsequently when the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petitioners have trespassed into the suit schedule property and committed any of the offences as stated above. Therefore, the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the criminal proceedings.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, filing of different civil suits are admitted. Issuance of 8 temporary injunction in favour of the accused is also admitted. But however, a criminal act was committed by the accused by trespassing into the property, abusing and assaulting the informant and also criminally intimidating. Therefore there are prima facie material to constitute the offence. Hence, criminal proceeding is not liable to be quashed and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State contended that the private complaint was referred for investigation to the jurisdictional police and after investigation the charge sheet was came to be filed. The charge sheet was accepted by the Trial Court and cognizance was taken. The criminal case was registered, which is pending for consideration. In view of the same, he prays for passing appropriate order in the matter.
10. Perused the materials on record.
9
11. In the light of the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for consideration is as follows:
"Whether, the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners in
CC.No298/2020 on the file of the Trial Court (in Crime No.113/2018 of Moka Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?"
12. My answer to the above points is in the 'affirmative' for the following :
: REASONS :
13. The facts narrated above disclose that, there is serious dispute regarding ownership of the property which is admittedly the agricultural property. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant- respondent No.2 that accused No.1 to 3 have illegally trespassed over the agricultural land, abused him, 10 assaulted and criminally intimidated and thereby committed the offence as stated above. But at the same time, it is also admitted that four civil suits were filed as stated above seeking declaration of title, cancellation of the sale deed and for permanent injunction, wherein the core subject is the sale deed that is called in question before the civil Court. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are having order of interim injunction in their favour granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.483/2018 filed by them seeking cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction.
14. In view of all these facts and circumstances, prima facie it cannot be said that the petitioners have illegally trespassed over the agricultural land which was in possession of respondent No.2 and committed the offences as stated above. Ultimately it is the decision of the Civil Court, which will prevail to prove trespass over the agricultural land. Incidentally the complainant has to prove his title and possession over the property which is in serious dispute.
11
15. Under such circumstances, I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
The petitioner is hereby allowed.
The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.298/2020 pending before the Trial Court (arising out or Crime No.113/2018 of Moka Police Station, Ballari) for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with section 34 IPC is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM