IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.939/2016 BETWEEN:
Kalkuli Vittal Heggade, S/o. Mariyappa Heggade, Aged about 53 years, R/at Matadagadde Village, Sringeri Taluk, Sringeri, Chikkamagalur District – 577 101. …Petitioner (By Sri. N. Dilli Rajan, Advocate for Sri. K.N. Subba Reddy, Senior Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Sringeri Police Station, Represented by S.P.P., High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Shekar, S/o. Bellaiah, Major, Hanumantha Nagar, Sringeri, Chikkamagalur, Chikkamagalur District – 577 101. … Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P. for R1; Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R2 – absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR and Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.85/2012 by respondent No.1/Sringeri Police and further to quash all proceedings arising out of the same, which are pending in Cr.No.85/2012 (Spl.C.No.6/2013) before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR and Charge Sheet registered against him in Spl.C.No.6/2013 arising out of Crime No.85/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504 and 506 of IPC r/w Section 3(1) (v) (viii) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 is a habitual complainant. Even on earlier occasion he instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioner on similar allegation that the petitioner herein trespassed into his land comprised in Sy.No.20/2 measuring 17 guntas in Sringeri Village. But, considering the documents of title and possession standing in the name of the petitioner herein, this Court in Crl.P.No.3417/2011 connected with 3416/2011 vide order dated 24.07.2018 has held that right from inception, the petitioner herein alone was in possession of the disputed property as a tenant thereof. Under the said circumstance, question of petitioner trespassing into the alleged land and issuing threats to respondent No.2 does not arise at all. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings pending against him in Spl.C.No.6/2013 arising out of Cr.No.85/2012 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
4. Learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 however argued in support of the impugned Charge Sheet contending that the material collected during investigation prima-facie discloses the ingredients of the above offences and hence, based on the earlier order passed by this Court, impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2012 at about 09.30 A.M. petitioner herein trespassed into the land bearing Sy.No.20/2 measuring 17 guntas of Sringeri Village and abused the complainant and issued threats and intimidated the complainant. In the complaint as well as in the charge sheet it is stated that the aforesaid property was granted to respondent No.2 by the Revenue Authorities in the year 2007 and respondent No.2 is in actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. But, in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, similar allegations were made against the petitioner contending that the petitioner herein trespassed into the land bearing Sy.No.20/2 measuring 17 guntas in Sringeri Village allotted to respondent No.2 under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
7. In the said order, it is observed that the aforesaid grant order was the subject matter of Appeal Nos.32 and 321/2008 before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru and by order dated 20.10.2010, the order passed by the Government in LRF (7A) 3 & 4/1999-2000 dated 27.04.2001 was set aside and the Government was directed to dispose of the said land as if it is surplus land as contemplated under Section 77 of Land Reforms Act. Against the said order, the petitioner herein preferred W.P.No.13086/2011(LR) C/w W.P.Nos.13261 & 15470/2011 (LR), which came to be disposed of on 23.08.2011, wherein this Court passed the following order:
“9. Insofar as W.P.No.13086/2010 is concerned, apparently, it is to be noticed that the impugned order was passed in the year 2001 and the appeal is presented in the year 2008. Indeed, the Tribunal has condoned the delay. That being the discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be interfered even though the delay was inordinate. But however, on merits the Tribunal has found that the petitioner was not cultivating the land as a tenant as on 1.3.1974. The Tribunal has summoned records and has perused the same and has found that the application filed by the petitioner seeking occupancy rights cannot be granted. To my mind the petitioner has failed to prove that he is cultivating the land as a tenant. Hence, the said order confirming the rejection cannot be faulted.
10. Insofar as the companion writ petition is concerned, apparently, the matter requires remittance to the competent authority once again for the reason that it is required to re-consider the claim with reference whether the application was filed in Form No.7 in respect of Sy.No.20/2 as on the appointed date i.e. 1.3.1974. The competent authority is also required to consider whether the original application was in respect of Sy.No.20/2 or in respect of some other land and whether a statement was made by the original applicant indicating that he is not cultivating Sy.No.20/2. All this is required to be reconsidered by the competent authority. Hence, the following order is passed:
W.P.No.13086/2011 stands dismissed. W.P.Nos.13261/2011 is allowed.
The order passed by the Tribunal as well as the competent authority is set aside and the matter stands remitted to the competent authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law having regard to the observations made during the course of this order.”
8. Having regard to the findings recorded by this Court in the previous order, there cannot be any trespass by the petitioner, since he is the owner and in possession of the said property. When the trespass itself is not established, question of petitioner abusing respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and issuing threats to him also does not arise. The complaint appears to have been filed only to dissuade him from continuing with the litigation filed before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and before this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. In view of the above facts, I am of the clear view that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is malafide, vexatious and ulteriorly motivated and a clear case of abuse of process of Court.
As a result, petition is allowed. Proceedings in Spl.C.No.6/2013 arising out of Crime No.85/2012 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV