IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2609 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. G V SATHEESHA REDDY S/O G T VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT GUNJOOR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560037 2. SMT. K. E. NALINI W/O G V SATHEESHA REDDY AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT GUNJOOR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 037.
3. K.E. SESHA REDDY S/O. K.C. EERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, C.M.R. LAYOUT, NEAR HENNUR BANDE, KALYANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 043.
4. G.S. NAVANEETH S/O. SATEESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.411, 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 076.
5. K.B. NANDA KUMAR S/O. BABU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO. 143/3, C.M.R. LAYOUT, BANK COLONY, H.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 076.
6. NADEEEM S/O. LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.219, 4TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST STAGE, H.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.
7. K.E. BABU REDDY S/O. K.C. ERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.143/3, C.M.R. LAYOUT, BANK COLONY, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.
(BY SRI: Y.C.BHUJABALAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASAWADI POLICE STATION, BANASAWADI, BANGALORE-560 084.
2. LAKSHAMMA W/O. K.C. ERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ... PETITIONERS SAINT THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560 084.
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1, SRI: KALYAN.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.649/2014 REGISTERED BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, PRODUCED HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143,144,147,448,504,506(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND C.C.NO.54498/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY (MAYOHALL UNIT), BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTILY TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 14.11.2004 LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.649/2014 registered by Banasawadi police under Sections 143, 144, 147, 448, 504, 506(B) r/w 149 Indian Penal Code pending on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.54498/2015.
2. Petitioner No.2 is the daughter, petitioner No.1 is the son-in-law and petitioner Nos.3 and 7 are the sons and petitioner No.4 is the grandson of the complainant viz., respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are their friends. Respondent No.2 lodged a report before Banasawadi police on 14.11.2014. The allegations made in the complaint read as follows:-
“Today i.e. 14.11.2014 around 5.45 pm a mob of around 50-60 people lead by Varthur councilr Uday, G.V. Sathis Reddy, K.E. Nalini Reddy, K.E. Shesha Reddy, K.E. Babu Reddy, G.S. Navaneeth, K.B. Nandu Kumar along with others intentionally and knowingly that we are alone at home trespassed our house at above mentioned address and threatened to kill and attacked us all with deadly weapons and used the vehicle number bearing KA-03 MP 2166.And also used abusive and vulgar language without giving value and damaging our personal image.
Since me and wife are senior citizens and staying with my daughter-in-laws and young grand children there was no hope for us to save our life. Request us to give protection and take necessary strict action as per the law against them. As this may happen again and it’s a threat to our life.”
3. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the present petitioners viz., accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 448, 504, 506(B) r/w 149 Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are malicious and are motivated out of spite and ill-will between the parties. The allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet even if accepted on their face value do not make out any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. On account of strained relationship between the accused and the complainant, the complainant has misused criminal process and hence, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 however submits that the allegations made against the petitioners squarely attract the ingredients of the offences charged against them. These allegations are substantiated through the statements of the complainant as well as other witnesses and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is false and baseless and hence, seeks to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned HCGP would submit that the prosecution has cited independent witnesses in support of the accusations against the petitioners, which clearly make out the offences alleged them. The matter is already seized by the criminal Court and hence there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are an abuse of process of the Court. Firstly, it is an undisputed fact that a suit for partition is pending between the parties since 2007 in O.S.No.9044/2007. The very fact that these proceedings have not come to a logical end itself indicate that the relationship between the parties is severely strained. Moreover, the very allegations made against the petitioners lead to doubt the veracity and the genuineness of the incident alleged by the complainant. The complaint does not contain any specific allegations either against the petitioners herein or against any of the members of unlawful assembly. Except making general and omnibus allegation that a mob of 50-60 people trespassed into the house of the complainant and abused and threatened the complainant and her family members, it is not forthcoming from the complaint or from her statement as to whether said threats were issued by any of the petitioners herein or any other members of the unlawful assembly. Even though it is alleged that 50-60 members had trespassed into the house of the complainant except naming accused Nos.1 to 7, the complaint is totally silent as to the motive for the commission of the above offences. Interestingly in the charge sheet, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 abused the complainant saying that the complainant and her family members themselves are enjoying the ancestral properties, which is clearly an after-thought. In the complaint, there is not even a remote reference to the alleged property dispute between the complainant and the petitioners. Even assuming that there was property dispute, when petitioner No.2 herself has filed a suit for partition and claims a share in the ancestral property, in the absence of any assertion by respondent No.2 that the property in question is her self- acquired property, there cannot be any trespass by petitioner No.2 or her children into the property which is the subject matter of the partition suit. Therefore, the charge for the offence under Section 448 Indian Penal Code cannot stand.
8. Insofar as the other allegations are concerned, except making bald and general allegations that a mob consisting of 50-60 persons abused and threatened the complainant and her family members, there are no specific allegations either in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses that any of the petitioners herein abused the complainant or issued threats to her. It is also pertinent to note that even though it is alleged that the mob was armed with deadly weapons, no weapons are seized during the investigation. All these circumstances indicate that on account of strained relationship between the parties and the alleged civil suit pending between petitioner No.2 and the complainant, the above prosecution has been launched against the petitioners. The allegations made in the charge sheet, even if are accepted as true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. As already stated above, the charge under Section 448 Indian Penal Code cannot stand. The allegations of abuse are general and are not attracted against any of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of the Court and therefore cannot be allowed to continue.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Cr.No.649/2014 presently pending on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.54498/2015 are quashed only insofar as the petitioners viz., accused Nos.1 to 7 are concerned.
It is made clear that the dismissal of above order shall not be considered as a licence to any of the petitioners to take law into their own hands and commit any criminal offence against the complainant. Any observations made in this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in the Civil Court pending before the Civil Court.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-