IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1598 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYAPPA REDDY S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI. SRINATH S/O. JAYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SRI. PRABAKARA S/O. JAYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.96, 8TH MAIN, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, HONGASANDRA VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
(BY SRI: H.N.MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION, ... PETITIONERS BENGALURU-560 100.
2. MICO NAUKARARA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, NO.341/24/1, 8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI:VEERANNA.O ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: M.U.POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO. 288/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M, BENGALRUU RURAL DIST., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.288/2014.
2. On entertaining the petition, stay order was granted by this Court on 15.03.2016 till the appearance of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has put in appearance on 14.03.2016. Thereafter, the stay order has not been continued. In the mean-
while, respondent No.1 has submitted a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 427, 108, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
3. The material allegations levelled against the petitioners are that the petitioners herein trespassed into the properties comprised in Sy.No.190/2 of Begur Village, Begur Hobli and damaged the road formed in Mico layout Society.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset would submit that on account of interference caused by second respondent-Mico Naukarara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, at the instance of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing a W.P.No.17780/2011 and by order dated 21.03.2012, the said petition was disposed of granting writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein viz., Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, The Bangalore Development Authority, The Mico Shramajevigala Karmikara Gruhanirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamita and The Inspector of Police, Electronic City Police Station, not to form any road in the property belonging to the petitioners without due process of law. The said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3069/2012(LB-BMP) dated 13.03.2014 and hence, there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioners either to trespass into the said properties or to damage the road. Learned counsel would submit that the very existence of road having not been established by respondent No.2, the allegations of trespass and destruction of road is patently baseless and a sheer abuse of process of the Court and is intended to get over the orders of this Court in the above proceedings.
5. Refuting the above contentions, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 who has filed his detailed statement of objections would submit that the agricultural property comprised in Sy.No.190/2 situated at Begur village and Begur Hobli was converted into non-agricultural property in the year 1991. In respect of the said property, Mico Naukarara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Bengaluru approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.493/2014 and by order dated 12.06.2014, an order of status-quo is issued and in the said background, the action taken by the petitioners high handedly interfering with the possession of the said property clearly attracts the offences alleged against the petitioners. Moreover, the investigation having been completed and charge sheet having been laid against the petitioners, the allegations made against the petitioners are fortified by cogent material and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on going through the documents produced alongwith the petition, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the alleged offences is patently illegal and are an abuse of process of the Court. The material allegations made against the petitioners pertain to interference in the road said to have been existing in the property comprised in Sy.No.190/2 of Begur village. But the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.17780/2011, which is affirmed in W.A.No.3069/2012, it is held that the BDA has no right to form the road in the property comprised in Sy.No.190/2. The said observation presupposes that no road was existing in the said property as on the date of the orders of this Court. Even the documents produced by learned counsel for respondent No.2 do not indicate the existence of any road in the property in question. Under the said circumstances, question of petitioners either trespassing into the said property or destroying the said road does not arise at all. When the existence of the road itself is not substantiated, the allegations of trespass appears to have been engineered solely to circumvent the orders of this Court with a view to create evidence of possession over the disputed road. Under the said circumstances, the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners are patently groundless, baseless and are ulteriorly motivated to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. That apart, the alleged dispute having been seized by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, it is not proper for the respondent to resort to criminal action during the pendency of the appeal. If at all there is any interference in the properties which are seized by Karnakata Appellate Tribunal, the parties are required to seek appropriate orders from the said Court rather than seeking relief from Criminal Court. Thus viewed from any angle, the invocation of criminal jurisdiction in the above circumstances is clearly illegal and a sheer abuse of process of the Court and therefore cannot be allowed to continue.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners arising out of Cr.No.288/2014 and presently pending on the file of Addl. CMM, Bengaluru Rural District are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-