IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI Crl.P. No.3619/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Sri Eralingaiah S/o late Patel Veerabhadraiah Aged about 52 years R/a Neelasandra village Huliyurdurga Hobli Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 123.
2. Sri Nandeesh S/o late Patel Veerabhadraiah Aged about 50 years R/a Neelasandra village Huliyurdurga Hobli Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 123. … Petitioners (By Sri Siddamallappa P M, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Huliyurdurga Police Kunigal Taluk Tumkur District – 572 123 By its SPP, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. K Ramesh The Tahsildar Kunigal Taluk Tumkur-572 123. ... Respondents (By Sri R D Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, R2 – served but unrepresented) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the impugned criminal prosecution initiated in C.C No.324/2017 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Kunigal by allowing the above petition with costs.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
(1) Call for records in C.C.No.324/2017 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (2) To quash the impugned criminal prosecution initiated in C.C.No.324/2017 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, by allowing the above petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioners have questioned the validity of initiation of proceedings in CC No.324/2017. There were certain disputes relating to owner of land in respect Sy.No.5/2 measuring 6 acres 14 guntas in Neelasandra village, Huliyurudurga Hobli. Officials of the Revenue Department/Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk while exercising the power under the Land Revenue Act and Rules, visited the spot for official work, petitioners prevented those officials in not undertaking proceedings, whereby Tahslidar has given a complaint to the jurisdictional police on 3.9.2016 stating that petitioners were preventing the officials of the Tahsildar office in discharging their duties in terms of the Land Revenue Act and Rules, whereby they have alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners had the benefit of injunction on 19.8.2016 passed in OS No.383/2016. Therefore, petitioners were alleged to have prevented the officials. Hence, complaint dated 3.9.2016 is contrary to the order of injunction dated 19.8.2016 passed in OS No.383/2016.
4. Perusal of the plaint read with order dated 19.8.2016 passed in OS No.383/2016, grievance of the petitioners is only to the extent of land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.5/2, whereas the officials were discharging their duties with reference to the very same survey number measuring 6 acres 14 guntas.
5. It is a matter of disputed facts whether the land measuring 6 acres 14 guntas is part and parcel of land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and the Court below granted order of injunction on 19.8.2016. Thus, it is a case relating to disputed facts, which are required to be tried before the competent Court. Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 held 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.”
6. Having regard to the aforesaid decision read with factual aspects of the matter and alleged offences in the present matter, it is not appropriate to interfere. Accordingly, petitioners have not made out a case.
In view of the above, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm