IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6668/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Parameshwara Madiwala, S/o. Gummanna Madiwala, Aged 75 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 231.
2. Smt. Sundari, W/o. Parameshwara Madiwala, Aged about 63 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 231.
3. Prema, D/o. Parameshwara Madiwala, Aged about 37 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 231.
4. Vinodha, D/o. Parameshwara Madiwala, Aged about 34 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 231.
5. Jayananda, S/o. Parameshwara Madiwala, Aged about 45 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 231.
6. Sadananda, S/o. Parameshwara Madiwala, Aged about 43 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 231.
7. Santhosh Kumar, S/o. Sanjiva Rai, Aged about 45 years, R/at Mavanthoor House, Koila Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 219.
8. Chandrayya Achary, S/o. Thimappa Achary, Aged about 60 years, R/at Patradi House, Panjikal Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 219. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., Advocate) AND:
Sharath Kumar, S/o. Thaniappa Madiwala, Aged about 27 years, R/at Sajipamunnor Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 211. ... Respondent (By Sri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, Advocate - Absent) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 29.01.2008 in PC No.19/2004 now numbered as C.C.No.158/2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Bantwal and consequently entire proceedings in C.C.No.158/2008 pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Bantwal, be quashed by allowing this petition.
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. Perused the petition.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Bantwal, in C.C.No.158/2008, whereby rejecting the ‘B’ summary report, the learned Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioners to answer the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. I have perused the impugned order. The said order is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL’ reported in [1980] SCC [2] 91 which is followed by this Court in ‘DR. RAVI KUMAR v. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND ANOTHER’ reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.
The impugned order discloses that the learned Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ summary report and thereafter recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and having satisfied himself that prima-facie case is made out for prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences, has issued summons to the petitioners. I do not find any error or illegality whatsoever in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners’ that the complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the civil proceedings pending between the parties, cannot be accepted. The said civil suit appears to have been a motive for commission of offences mentioned in the complaint. It is specifically stated in the complaint that inspite of operation of the injunction order issued by the trial Court, the petitioners herein effected construction in the disputed property and when the complainant tried to take photographs of the construction work, the complainant and his parents were assaulted and threatened. These allegations are substantiated by medical records, which clearly make out the offences alleged against the petitioners.
As a result, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV