IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5443/2017 BETWEEN:
1. MR C E SIDDEGOWDA S/O EREGOWA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. MR. UMESHA S/O C.E. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. MR. JAYAPRAKASH S/O C.E. SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. MR. PARVATHE GOWDA S/O LATE EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 5. MR. SHARATH S/O PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 6. MR. BYREGOWA S/O SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7. MR. MANU KUMAR S/O BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT CHIKKAMAGARAHALLI VILLAGE ALDUR POST AND HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGARAHALLI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGARAHALLI DISTRICT-577111.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMARA P P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY CHIKKAMAGALUR RURAL CIRCLE POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATKAA BANGALORE -571101.
2. MR. C.H. EREGOWDA S/O LATE C.D. HOOVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/ AT CHIKKAMAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, ALDUR POST AND HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGARALLI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT -577111.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.40/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, CHIKKAMAGALURU REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.P.P.Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused 1 to 7 in C.C.No.726/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 504, 506 of IPC are seeking for quashing of said proceedings contending interalia that dispute between petitioner and second respondent – complainant is of civil nature and revenue records of properties in question stands in the name of petitioner’s brother and as such, continuation of proceedings before the jurisdictional Court is an abuse of process of law and as such, it is liable to be quashed.
3. Per contra, Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for State would support the initiation of proceedings and continuation of investigation against the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers it would disclose that complainant has filed the complaint in question under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was referred to under Section 156(3) to jurisdictional police for investigation and they have registered FIR in Cr.No.40/2015 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 379, 324, 506(2) of IPC and on conclusion of investigation charge sheet has also been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 149, 504 and 506 IPC.
5. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that revenue records relating to property in question stands in the name of petitioner’s brother and dispute relating to said property is pending in civil suit and there are no material whatsoever about the purported acts of petitioners and prays for quashing of said proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that at the time of considering a plea for quashing of proceedings the probable defence that would be raised by the accused would not be in the realm of consideration.
6. That apart, perusal of the complaint in question lodged by second respondent before the jurisdictional Magistrate would clearly disclose that property bearing Sy.No.281 is claimed to have been purchased by the complainant under a registered sale deed dated 13.09.2010 and is said to be in his possession. It is also alleged that accused persons not only trespassed into said land but also cut silver oak trees and when questioned, accused persons are said to have threatened the complainant and abused him in foul language. As to whether there was alleged tress- pass on 16.02.2015 as alleged by complainant and as to whether petitioners had cut the silver oak trees, which were standing in the said land belonging to complainant that too clandestinely and had abused the complainant namely, second respondent, are all issues which can be thrashed out during the course of trial and at this stage, this Court would not be in a position to appreciate the said contention since matter requires trial. In that view of the matter, this Court finds there is no merit in this petition for being entertained. Hence, criminal petition stands dismissed.
I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR