IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8384/2015 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJULA W/O.M.C.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS CHOWDESHWARI CABLE NETWORK MANJUNATHANAGAR KOLLEGALA TOWN-571 440 2. M.C.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KABINI IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KOLLEGALA-571 440 3. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O.M.C.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS C-4, MANJUNATHANAGAR KOLLEGALA TOWN-571 440 4. R.RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS EX.MUNICIPAL NOMINATED MEMBER NAYAKARA STREET KOLLEGALA-571 440 5. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKER CHOWDESHWARI CABLE NETWORK MANJUNATHANAGAR KOLLEGALA TOWN-571 440 6. KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKER CHOWDESHWARI CABLE NETWORK MANJUNATHANAGAR KOLLEGALA TOWN-571 440 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
V.RENUKESHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR KOLLEGALA CABLE NETWORK AKN BUILDING DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD KOLLEGAL TOWN-571 440 …RESPONDENT (PARTY-IN-PERSON IS ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CRL.RP.NO.40/2011 AND THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, KOLLEGAL IN CC.NO.505/2011.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Respondent-party-in-person is absent.
3. Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.505/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kollegal.
4. The respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners in PCR.No.12/2008. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant has been running a cable network by name “Ramya Cable Network”. Petitioner No.1 is running a similar business by name, “Chowdeshwari Cable Network”. Petitioner No.1 has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.216/2005. In the complaint, it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 have committed offences of ‘mischief’. Hence, the respondent has sought for prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 427 of IPC.
5. Undisputedly, the civil suit is filed against the respondent by the petitioners in O.S.No.216/2005 and injunction order is operating against the respondent not to interfere and disconnect the cable connection to Manjunathnagar. The application filed by respondent for vacating the said order is also dismissed.
6. In the above circumstances, the facts averred in the complaint even if accepted in its entirety, do not make out any criminal offence warranting prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 427 of IPC. The prosecution initiated against the petitioners being illegal and abuse of the process of the Court, the same cannot be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.505/2011 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kollegal, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE LB