IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6833 OF 2018 Between:
1. Smt.Leelavati, W/o Yalakaiah, Age: 49 years, 2. Smt.Pallavi, D/o Yalakaiah, Age:21 years, Both are residing at 1239, 21st Cross, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Stage, Mysore – 8.
(By Sri. Satish G. Raikar, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, J.P.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 078. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
…Petitioners 2. Sri.Yateesh, S/o Shivaprasad, Age: 37 years, No.1448, 17th B Main, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru City – 560 078. (By Smt. K. P. Yashodha, HCGP) ...Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 29.10.2013 in Crime No.580/2013 as well as the Charge Sheet dated 01.07.2014 filed by the 1st Respondent Police in C.C.No.35427/2014, dated vide Annexure F2 and F3.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
“i) quash the FIR dated 29.07.2013 in Crime No.580/2013 as well as the charge sheet dated 01.07.2014 filed by the 1st respondent (Jayaprakash Nagar Police) in C.C.No.35427/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC pending before V Additional C.M.M Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City.
ii) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. There are alleged allegations leveled against the petitioners in trespassing the complainant’s residence and damaging certain items, which were placed within the compound wall of the complainant. Further, such alleged allegations have been supported by the neighbours of the complainant as is evident from the record. Therefore, it is a matter for investigation.
3. The Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sau.
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors’, reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 at paragraph No.9 reads as under:
“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case read with the Supreme Court decision, the present writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to make necessary application for discharge, if any, at the relevant stage.
With the above observations, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-