IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4979 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O. LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SMT. B.K. GEETHA W/O. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. SRI B.R.MOHAN KUMAR S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4. SRI B.K.NOOTHAN S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.873 14TH CROSS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 086 5. SRI G.H.GOOLAIAH S/O. LATE HUCHHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT JINNAGARA (VILLAGE) AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TAKUK TUMKUR – 572 130 6. SRI MARIGOWDA S/O. LATE HUCCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.57, SRI NILAYA 2ND MAIN ROAD EKADANTHAPURA HEROHALLI ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 091 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINATHA B.V. FOR SRI M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. SMT. AKKAMMA W/O.LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT JINNAGARA VILLAGE AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR – 572 130 2. STAGE BY AMRUTHUR POLICE KUNIGAL TAKUK TUMKUR – 572 130 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUNIL K.N. FOR SRI K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN PCR.NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have called in question the validity and propriety of registering a private complaint against them in PCR.No.3/2015.
2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.2.
3. Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 420, 457 Of IPC. According to the complainant, after the death of her husband Kariyappa, the properties comprised in Nos.400 and 401 of Jinnagar Village devolved on her, but the petitioners herein with intent to lay a claim to these properties unlawfully trespassed therein on 20.12.2012 at about 5.00 p.m. and also fabricated false document in respect of these properties.
4. After the learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Police submitted a ‘B’ report in the matter. The complainant filed the protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and by order dated 12.05.2015 issued summons to the petitioners.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Petitioners are the legitimate legal heirs of deceased Kariyappa, who was the owner of the properties in question. The complainant failed to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint which prompted the Police to submit ‘B’ summary report. The sworn statement of the complainant does not disclose the ingredients of any of the above offences. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is bad in law. Further, by referring to the said order dated 12.05.2015, the learned Counsel has pointed out that it is not a speaking order. The learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason to reject ‘B’ Summary report and on this ground also the impugned order is liable to the quashed.
6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned order contending that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of Late Kariyappa. After his death, the properties in question having devolved on her, on account of the act of trespass by the petitioners, there is a clear case for trial and hence, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed.
7. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.2 has also argued in support of the impugned action and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
9. On going through the averments made in the complaint, I find serious dispute between the parties regarding their status as well as their title of the above properties. The complainant as well as the petitioners are laying claim over the properties of the deceased Kariyappa as his legitimate legal heirs. The materials on record indicate that after the death of Kariyappa, revenue documents have been mutated in the name of petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to show that these mutations have been challenged till date. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the complainant had filed a suit for declaration in respect of the very same property in OS.No.216/2009 and it was dismissed on 24.01.2014 and only after dismissal of the suit, the instant proceedings have been initiated out of spite and vengeance with the ulterior motive to create evidence in favour of respondent No.1.
10. The above facts clearly indicate that both the parties are laying claim over the properties of Late Kariyappa as his legal heirs. The said dispute is purely civil in nature and cannot be adjudicated by the Criminal Courts. Material on record indicates that after the death of Kariyappa, revenue records have been mutated in the name of petitioner No.1. In wake of these documents, the contention of the complainant that the petitioners herein trespassed into the lands of respondent No.1 cannot be countenanced. Having regard to the nature of allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant has converted a civil dispute into a criminal offence. In the absence of any prima facie material to substantiate the ingredients of criminal offences alleged against the petitioners, the impugned proceeding being mala fide and abuse of process of Court, are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in PCR.No.3/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE LB