IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3511 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
KUMAR S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR NILGIRI DAIRY (BENGALURU) PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 171, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: K SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE BY BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI 2. NIKHIL TIWARI M/S C & C HOTELS VENTURE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR MERIAN, COMMERCIAL TOWER WINDSOR PLACE, JANPATH NEW DELHI- 110 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA SPP II FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.320/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.320/2011 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli. The said case was registered based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent on 02.11.2009. According to the complainant, the lands bearing in Sy.No.79 (Old No.21) situated at Poojanahalli Village Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District were purchased from previous owner Muniyappa in the name of M/s. C & C Hotels Venture Private Limited. The said M/s. C & C Hotels Venture had constructed a compound wall around the property. On 01.11.2009 at 8.30 p.m., the petitioner and others came in an Innova car and Black Esteem Car bearing NO.KA-07-M-1453 and 4 JCBs and demolished the compound wall, shed, office block and wrongly confined the security personnel. After investigation, charge sheet is filed against three accused persons under Sections 427, 441, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.79 (Old No.21) of Poojanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The said property was purchased by the erstwhile vendor Sri. B. Ramesh under a sale deed dated 03.03.2004. He further submits that the aforesaid property with the larger extent measuring 4 acres of land was originally owned by one Muniyappa. He transferred the same to one S.M. Nagaraj on 06.04.1994, who in-turn transferred the entire extent of four acres to one B. Ramesh on 02.06.2003. Said B. Ramesh got the property converted and sold an extent of 2 acres to the petitioner herein by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed. Subsequent to the said sale, the original owner Muniyappa claiming to be a member of ‘Scheduled Caste’ sought for resumption of land and in this regard, proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner and the properties were sought to be resumed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before Deputy Commissioner and the said order was also challenged before this Court by petitioner and others in W.P.No.9643/2007 c/w 3649/2008 c/w 11723/2009 dated 02.02.2015. Learned counsel has placed for consideration a copy of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, wherein after considering the dispute raised by the parties in the concluding para, this Court has held as under:-
“To conclude, as a matter of fact though the grant condition with respect to unauthorized occupation/cultivation was for a period of fifteen years, after completion of that period the first sale had taken place. On the other hand, Muniyappa (his legal representatives) tried to get back the land by way of resumption stating that he belongs to SC/ST community and thereafter, after obtaining permission from the government, has effected a sale, it does not hold water since the very land, first in point of time, is sold in favour of S M Nagaraju and thereafter to B. Ramesh and other interested persons herein and those sales do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality in view of the observation made above and also the observations made by the Full Bench in this context. The property alienated by Muniyappa, does not fall within the ambit of S.3(1) (b) of the PTCL Act. The sale made by B. Ramesh in favour of the petitioners in WP 9643/2007 and 11723/2009 is held valid vis a vis the sale made in favour of B R Ramesh by Muniyappa. As such, the sale effected by deceased Muniyappa in favour of B R Ramesh has to treated as invalid as the provisions of the PTCL Act is not applicable to the case on hand. * The subsequent sale made by Muniyappa in favour of M/s C & C Hotels Venture Pvt. Ltd., dated 24.12.20018 is also held invalid as the petitioner in WP11723/2009 is in possession of the property by virtue of the first round of sale made by Muniyappa in favour of Nagaraju and thereafter from Nagaraju to others. Further more, it is made specific that deceased Muniyappa belonged to Christian community and not a Scheduled Caste person. As regards the land in question sold in favour of S M Nagaraju originally by Muniyappa after completion of non-alienation period of fifteen years, since the provisions of PTCL Act is not applicable as Muniyappa does not belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe, question of seeking permission from the government to effect sale is not at all necessary. Ordered accordingly.”
(*Added vide order dated 11.2.2015) 4. He further submits that in a subsequent proceedings in Writ Appeal No.2453/2015, the writ appeal filed by M/s. C & C Hotels Venture Private Limited(Complainant) herein has been dismissed. Even the finding recorded by this Court in W.P.No.11723/2009 that Muniyappa was a Christian and was not governed by the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978(for short ‘PTCL Act’) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.862/2015. As a result, the dispute between the parties stands concluded that the petitioner herein is the absolute lawful owner of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.79 (Old Sy.No.21) at Poojanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an attempt was made by the complainant himself to take unlawful possession of the properties belonging to the petitioner by erecting a compound wall surrounding his property but in exercise of his right under section 105 of IPC, petitioner got demolished the said compound wall. As a sequel thereto, present complaint has been lodged. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the allegations made in the complaint are patently false. The said allegations do not constitute any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner himself being the lawful owner as reflected in the orders passed by this Court, there cannot be any trespass by the petitioner in the property in question as alleged in the complaint. Further, the complaint itself is vague and does not contain specific averments constituting offences alleged against the petitioner. The surrounding circumstances discussed above clearly indicate that the complaint is ulteriorly motivated and is intended to create a right to the complainant in respect of the properties which has been the subject matter of the civil litigation over the years and hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition by quashing the proceedings.
6. Learned SPP-II would submit that, even though the complainant was not an eyewitness to the incident, the security men have been examined by the investigating agency, who have narrated the events which make out the offences alleged against the petitioner and hence there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. Insofar as the legal title to the property is concerned, the issue stands concluded that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the properties measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.79 (Old No.21) of Poojanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District as reflected in the orders referred above. In view of these orders, the allegations made in the complaint that M/s. C & C Hotels Venture Private Limited is the lawful owner of the schedule properties falls to the ground. Even though the complainant has referred to the sale deed, the subsequent orders passed by this Court have held that the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant is void, as a result, the complainant had no cause of action to lodge the complaint alleging trespass into the property in question.
8. Sofar as, the allegation of alleged trespass and wrongful confinement is concerned, the allegations made in the complaint appears to be vague and are not substantiated with any cogent and convincing material. A reading of the complaint indicates that the complainant was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. In the complaint, he has merely stated that on 01.11.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioner and others demolished the compound wall and shed and wrongfully confined the security personnel. He has not named the security personnel nor is there any indication in the complaint or in any of the records to show that any shed was existing in the said property at any point of time. Even though the Investigating Officers have examined CW-2 and CW-3 as the security personnel, in the absence of their names having been disclosed in the complaint, their statements are rendered susceptible to doubt. These witnesses appear to have been trumped up only to bolster up the charges. There is striking variance even in the version narrated by these witnesses in their statements and in the allegations made in the complaint. As already stated above, the complainant has merely stated that at 8.30 p.m., the petitioner herein and two others came in two cars and demolished the compound wall and unlawfully confined the security personnel. The complaint is silent as to the place of confinement, but interestingly, in their statements, these witnesses have stated that they were confined in the car. It cannot be believed that the assailants who came in a car would confine them in the car. There is also nothing in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses to state as to when and where they were released from confinement. They did not lodge any complaint regarding the alleged incident. All these circumstances lead to the conclusion that a false complaint has been engineered to lay a claim over the properties subsequent to the adverse orders suffered by the complainant. The material produced by the prosecution prima-facie does not inspire confidence nor does it establish the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner.
9. The manner in which above allegations are levelled against the petitioner and having regard to the overall circumstances brought out in the material produced before the Court, there is reason to believe that criminal law is set in motion by the complainant with an ulterior motion to lay a claim over the property of the petitioner by making false and baseless allegations. The course adopted by the complainant is a misuse of law amounting to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the impugned proceedings in my view are liable to be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C in order to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.320/2011 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli are hereby quashed.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE