Karnataka High Court
Dr. Usha Naraharirao Deshpande vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P NO.100625/2017
BETWEEN
1. DR. USHA NARAHARIRAO DESHPANDE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O: NO.17,
SARASWATPUR, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SRI. HANUMANTRAO S/O AMBAJIRAO SHINDHE,
AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O: EWS-462,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION AUTHORITIES,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2. SRI. PRAMOD S/O NARAHARIRAO DESHPANDE,
AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O: AT POST: MULAMUTTALA,
DHARWAD TALUK, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI.R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYED TO THIS COURT THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.252/2016 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324, 504, 506 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED BY ALLOWING THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No. 252/2016, are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Section 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, Sri.Pramod, s/o Naraharirao Deshpande lodged First Information with Vidyagiri Police against accused Nos.1 and 2, stating that there is dispute between the family members regarding share in the family property relating to house bearing CTS No.4/39/L measuring 14 gunta 70 square yards. Accused No.2 being the sister of the informant claims the entire property on the basis of the gift deed said to have been executed by her mother. The informant and other sharer filed a suit in O.S.No.117/2003 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad seeking partition and separated possession. In the meantime, on 23.02.2016 when -3- the informant along with his brother Ashok, after attending the court was returning to their house at 7.00 p.m., accused No.1 and 2 after breaking open the lock put to the house, have criminally trespassed into the house. When the informant questioned, accused No.2 told that the house was in her name and accused Nos.1 and 2 have criminally intimated to cause their death. Later, the informant and his brother stayed in a lodge. On 05.03.2016 at 12.30 p.m. the informant along with his brother went to their house situated at Saraswatpur, Dharwad, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with one Nandkumar were in the house. When the informant tried to enter the house, accused No.1 abused him in filthy language and criminally intimidating to cause his death, accused No.1 hit the informant with a rod to his palm. When the brother of the informant by name Ashok came to rescue the informant, accused No.2 assaulted him with firewood all over his body and one Nandakumar and 7 to 8 persons criminally intimated to cause their death. On the hue and cry made by the informant, the persons who were passing through, pacified the situation. Since the informant and his brother have sustained injuries, they were shifted to District -4- Hospital, Dharwad. The informant lodged the First Information and requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. The police registered the FIR in Cr.No.57/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 506 and 149 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the charge sheet is already filed and the matter is pending in C.C.No.252/2016 before the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad for framing charge. The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court seeking to quash the Criminal proceeding initiated against them, in the interest of justice.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. J. S. Shetty for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri. Praveen K. Uppar for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri. R. H. Angadi for Respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law by the informant as he filed a false criminal complaint only to settle the civil dispute -5- between the parties. The mother of 1st petitoner/2nd accused was the owner of the house, who executed registered Gift Deed in favour of petitioner No.1. The informant and others claimed share over the property by filing O.S.117/2003. The suit came to be dismissed. Only to gain support in the civil case and to pressurize the petitioners, the criminal complainant came to be filed without any basis. Since it is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mitesh Kumar J1. Sha v. The State of Karnataka & Others to contend that, when a civil dispute is given Criminal flavour and there is abuse of process of the Court, the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the Criminal proceedings initiated against them in the interest of justice.
1 2021 SCC online SC 976 -6-
6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that, initially Vaishali who is the another sister of the informant, who was later transposed as plaintiff No.2, maintained O.S. No.117/2003 in respect of the landed property, seeking partition and separate possession. The said property was purchased by the father of the informant and after he came to know that gift deed is said to have been executed by his mother to petitioner No.1/accused No.2, a suit was filed, however, the suit in O.S. No.117/2003 came to be dismissed. The informant and others preferred Regular Appeal in RA 8/2017 before the District and Session Court Dharwad and the said appeal came to allowed and the claim made by petitioner No.1 was rejected. When the said judgment and decree was challenged before this Court by filing RSA No.100660/2018, the same came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in the regular appeal. Thereby, it is held that the informant and the other sharers are entitled for share over the family property. Now the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Spl. Leave Petition, which is filed by the petitioner No.1.
-7-
7. Learned counsel submits that since the dispute is with regard to family property which was in the position of the informant and other sharers, the petitioners have illegally trespassed into the property and when the informant and his brother questioned the high handed act, the accused assaulted them with rod and firewood and caused injuries. Thereafter, the informant and his brother were taken to the hospital for treatment. Thus they lodged the first information making specific allegations. Under such circumstances and at this stage, the Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. He further submits that now the matter is pending in C.C.No.252/2016 before the Trial Court for framing of the charge. When there are specific allegations against the petitioners, the Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. Hence he prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. Learned HCGP supporting the contention taken by Respondent No.2 submits that after due investigation the charge sheet came to be filed by the investigating officer citing 10 witnesses. CWs.1 and 4 are the injured eyewitnesses. CW.5 is the eye witness, CW.7 is the Doctor, who treated the injured. -8- The wound certificates of accused Nos. 1 and 2 are produced by the investigating officer. Since the case is pending before the trial Court, the Criminal proceeding need not be quashed. Accordingly, he prayed for passing appropriate orders.
9. Perused the materials on record in the light of the recent judgments.
10. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as under:
"Whether the impugned order passed in C.C.No.252/2016 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?"
11. My answer to the above point is in the "negative" for the following REASONS
12. The specific contention of the petitioners herein is that, a false complaint was filed by the informant against Respondent No.2 only to settle civil dispute, which is pending between the parties. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble -9- Apex Court in the Mitesh Kumar Sha (Supra) to contend that when a civil dispute is given the criminal colour, without there being any material, the Criminal proceeding is required to be quashed.
13. I have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mitesh Kumar Sha (Supra) wherein it has held as under:
" 37. Although, there is perhaps not even an iota of doubt that a singular factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil as well as criminal nature, each of which could be pursued regardless of the other. In the instant case, the actual question which requires consideration is not whether a criminal case could be pursued in the presence of a civil suit, but whether the relevant ingredients for a criminal case are even prima facie made out. Relying on the facts as discussed in previous paragraphs, clearly no cogent case regarding a criminal breach of trust or cheating is made out."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has also referred to paragraph 33 of its earlier decision in the case of Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. & Others
- 10 -
(in Criminal Appeal No.932/2021 decided on 02.09.2021) which reads as follows;
"33. ....There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offences or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a 2civil nature has been given colour of criminal offences. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. A reading of the above decisions, make it clear that the facts of the case can give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings but when the criminal case is instituted without there being prima facie materials, such criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. The only test to be adopted by the Courts 2 Criminal Appeal No.932/2021
- 11 -
before exercising the inherent jurisdiction, is to consider whether the First Information filed by the informant makes out a criminal offence as alleged or not.
16. In the present case the Informant/Respondent No.2 filed first information on 05.03.2016 at 21.15 hours stating that on 23.02.2016 accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed over the property and ousted the informant and his brother. On 05.03.2016 when he along with his brother went to the house, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused them in filthy language and criminally intimated to take away their life. Accused No.1 assaulted the informant with a rod on his hand and accused No.2 assaulted his brother Ashok with firewood/stick and the people gathered there, pacified the situation and both the injured were shifted to the Government Hospital, Dharwad.
17. The investigating officer held investigation and filed the charge sheet. 10 witnesses were cited as charge sheet witnesses. CWs.1 and 4 are the injured eyewitnesses, CW.5 is an eye witness to the incident, CW7 is the Doctor who treated the
- 12 -
injured. The wound certificates of CWs.1 and 4 were also produced before the Court, which go to show that they have sustained simple injuries and they were examined by the Doctor in the District Hospital Dharwad on the very same day on 05.03.2016 at 2.20pm. When the averments made in the first information are supported by the wound certificates and also the statements of the witnesses, which has resulted in filing of the charge sheet before the trial Court, I do no find any reason to quash the Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
18. Even though it is settled proposition of law that registration of Criminal complaints only to settle, the Civil dispute is liable to be discouraged, but when an offence was committed, when the civil dispute is pending between the parties, pendency of Civil litigation itself cannot be a ground to quash the Criminal proceedings. Since in the present case, there are Prima-facie materials which constitute the offences as alleged against the petitioners, which has resulted in filing of the charge sheet, I am of the opinion that, it is not a fit case to
- 13 -
exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of quashing the Criminal proceedings.
19. Hence, my answer to the above point is in the "negative" and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP/-