IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1805 OF 2012 BETWEEN :
1. A.N. PRABHAKAR REDDY S/O LATE NANJI REDDY AGED 51 YEARS ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION ACHEPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 2. A.N. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE NANJI REDDY AGED 53 YEARS ACHEPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 3. SMT LEELAMMA W/O A.N. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY AGED 45 YEARS ACHEPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 4. RAGHAVENDRA S/O SHIVAREDDY AGED 20 YEARS ACHEPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. D.S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE BY BAGEPALLI POLICE BAGEPALLI-561 207 BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 2. VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O CHIKKABAYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK PIN -561 207 CHIKABALLAPUR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (R2 DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 08.04.2019. SINCE HE DIED ON 23.03.2019) (BY SHRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R-1) . . . .
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.74/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN.) AND J.M.F.C., BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR. B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN.) AND J.M.F.C., BAGEPALLI IN C.C.NO.74/2012 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 434, 447 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. C) QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET DATED 10.09.2011 IN A.NO.196/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BAGEPALLI THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri.D.S.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri.Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State.
2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.15/2011 on the file of Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn.) Bagepalli for declaration and injunction in respect of vacant site bearing No.61/2 which falls in between Sy.No.11/3 belonging to second respondent–complainant and Sy. No.11/1 belonging to petitioners in Achepalli village, Yellampalli Grama Panchayathi, Mittemari Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk. Civil Court granted an order of temporary injunction restraining second respondent from alienating the property in question.
3. On September 10, 2011, second respondent lodged FIR No.185/2011 in Bagepalli Police Station alleging that petitioners and others had removed the boundary stones fixed after survey and settlement. Police after investigation have filed charge sheet.
4. Shri.D.S.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the property bearing Sy. No.61/2 is in between the properties belonging to the petitioners and second respondent. Petitioners claiming to be the owners have filed a suit for declaration and injunction. Civil Court has granted an injunction against the second respondent. In order to harass petitioners, second respondent has filed the instant false complaint. He argued that Section 434 of IPC is not attracted to the facts of the case inasmuch as the boundary stones were not fixed by public servants. Further, there is no averment in this behalf. With regard to Section 447 of IPC, he submitted that the said provision is a penal Section for trespass under Section 441 of IPC. The definition Section namely Section 441 of IPC can be pressed into service only when any person enters into a property in possession of another person. He argued that petitioner’s specific case is that the property in question was given to the petitioners in a settlement arrived at in O.S. No.761/1995 and O.S. No.71/1996.
5. Shri.Reddy, has also filed a Memo stating that second petitioner has passed away on 23.03.2019.
6. Shri.Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP for the State argued in support of charge-sheet.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the records.
8. The complaint lodged by the second respondent shows that he had got boundary stones fixed and the same have been removed by the petitioners.
9. Shri.Reddy is right in his submission that Section 434 of IPC has no application to the facts of the case inasmuch as the averments made in the complaint is that the boundary stones were fixed by second respondent. Further, the said provision is a non-cognizable offence. So far as Section 447 of IPC is concerned, parties have been agitating since 1995 in O.S. No.761/1995 and O.S. No.71/1996. In O.S. No.15/2011, which is filed a month prior to the date of complaint, Civil Court has granted an interim order in favour of petitioners. Further the complainant is reportedly dead. In the circumstance, I am of the view that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition merits consideration and is allowed.
All proceedings in C.C.NO.74/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SPS