IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6238/2013 Between:
E. Bastian Warunny S/o E M Warunny, Aged about 41 years, Residing at Bastian Estate, Maldare Post, South Kodagu – 571217. … Petitioner (By Smt.Leela P.Devadiga, Advocate for Sri.A.K.Subbaiah, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Madikeri Rural Police Station, Madikeri, Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Betts Warunny, S/o E M Warunny, Aged about 45 years, Bava Estate, Kadagalu Village, Madikere Taluk – 571217. ..Respondents (By Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP – II for R.1 and Sri.K.Raghavendra, Advocate for R.2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC at Madikeri in, dated 17.12.2012 and order dated 07.05.2013 in FIR No.185/2007 now numbered as C.C.No.1128/2013 registered by the 1st respondent police and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.185/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 144, 427, 447, 504 and 506 read with 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. There is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the enjoyment of the properties. Impugned complaint is filed only to wreak personal vengeance against the petitioner. There is no truth in the allegations made against the petitioner. The said allegations, even if accepted to be true, do not make out any of the offences against the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to quash the entire proceedings.
4. The above submission is opposed by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and he contends that on account of the civil dispute between the parties, the petitioner, on the date of the incident along with other accused persons, unlawfully trespassed into the properties and issued threat to the petitioner. The said allegations are sought to be substantiated by cogent evidence and hence, there is no reason to contend that the prosecution instituted against the petitioner is false and baseless and hence, seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. A reading of the complaint, discloses the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 144, 427, 447, 504 and 506 read with 149 of IPC. The said allegations are purely criminal in nature. The civil dispute between the parties appears to be the motive for the commission of the said offences. These allegations require to be investigated by the jurisdictional police. Therefore, at this juncture, jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot be exercised to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE NBM