IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Criminal Petition No.2906 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.D.C.SURESH BABU, S/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. DR(MR) M.S.BHAVANI, W/O D.C.SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AND:
PETITIONER ARE R/O NO.74, DORCHESTER AVENUE, WARWICK-WA-6024, WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
(BY SMT.SAHANA ON BEHALF OF SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVS.) ... PETITIONERS 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BASAVESHWARANAGAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. MR.M.S.RAGHU NANDAN, S/O LATE M.SRINIVAS MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.19, RAILWAY LAYOUT, NANDINI LAYOUT, 4TH BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 096.
3. SMT. NIRMALA MURTHY, W/O LATE M.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.377, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 PASSED IN PCR NO.26117/2009 ON THE FILE OF V ACMM, BANGALORE AND QUASH ORDER DATED 05.11.2016 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.140/2016 ON THE FILE OF LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE (CCH – 68) AND ISSUE SUMMONS TO 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS U/S 204 CRPC AND DIRECT V ACMM, BANGALORE TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRL.P. IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Smt.Sahana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Shankarappa.S, for petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State.
2. Petitioners herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging they have purchased house property situated at Basaveshwarnagar under a sale deed dated 25.02.2004 from Smt.Nirmala Murthy and at that time, respondent No.3 was permitted to stay in the house which they had purchased as a licensee and kept their valuables in their house, including property documents as they were staying in Australia.
3. They have further stated that respondent No.2 has filed O.S.No.6341/2006 on the file of Civil Judge, Bengaluru in collusion with respondent No.3 against revision petitioner and as such, petitioners have revoked the licence granted to the petitioners to stay in the house by issuing legal notice which has been replied by respondent No.3.
4. It is also alleged that petitioners have filed suit for ejectment in OS No.1845/2008 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it is further alleged that during September, 2009 respondent Nos.2 and 3 have broke opened the lock of out-house and removed all the belongings and valuables, jewelry, property documents etc., placed in the out-house with the help of their henchmen. Hence, it is stated that they have rushed to India from Australia and lodged a complaint in that regard. On account of inaction of police, complaint in question came to be filed.
5. On registering the said complaint as PCR No.26117/2009, learned trial Judge ordered for investigation by the jurisdictional police and called for a report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Jurisdictional police submitted ‘B’ report on 17.05.2010 stating that it is a civil dispute. The acceptance of ‘B’ report by the learned Magistrate on 14.01.2016 came to be challenged by the petitioners in Crl.RP No.140/2016 before learned Sessions Judge, who by order dated 05.11.2016 dismissed the revision petition and has affirmed the order passed by learned Trial Judge accepting the ‘B’ report. Hence, this petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it would emerge therefrom that complainant has conveniently suppressed the fact of relationship between the accused persons namely respondent Nos.2 and 3 and themselves. Second petitioner (second complainant) is none other than daughter of the third respondent and sister of second respondent. First complainant is said to be the second husband of the second complainant. She claims to have purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004 from accused No.2 (her mother), as such, she alleged in the complaint that she was in possession of the property and in a portion of the property she had allowed her mother and brother to occupy the same as licensees. She along with her husband alleged that on account of respondent Nos.2 and 3 having filed a suit for declaration in OS No.6341/2006 on the file of Civil Judge, Bengaluru in collusion with accused No.2, they have perforced to revoke the license.
7. It is in this background ‘B’ report came to be filed by the jurisdictional police and when same is examined, it would leave no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court as rightly accepted by the learned Trial Judge, since reading of the entire averments or allegations made in the complaint together with the material placed before the Investigating Officer, the irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that dispute between parties is purely civil in nature and not an iota of criminal flavour can be found. Hence, learned trial Judge has accepted said ‘B’ report and it has been affirmed or confirmed by the revisional Court taking note of the sworn statement of complainant also and his witnesses.
8. The very fact that petitioners have already filed a suit for ejectment against complainant-accused would clearly indicate that at an undisputed point of time, they were not in possession and enjoyment of the property in question.
Yet another intriguing point which has to be adjudicated by parties before the jurisdictional Court relates to the Will said to have been executed by late Srinivasa Murthy who is none other than husband of the second accused and father of the second complainant and first accused whereunder bequeath is said to have been made by deceased of the property in question and as such, without going into the issue with regard to alleged possession and said issue being at large is pending before the jurisdictional Civil Court in OS Nos.6341/2006 and 1845/2008. Hence, this petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE GH