IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3476 OF 2016 Between:
Sri. K.S.Vasudev, S/o K.Subba Rao, Aged about 67 years, R/a No.125, 5th Main Road, Poornapragna Layout, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085. .. Petitioner (By Smt. Suman K.V., for Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, Advocates) And:
1. The State by the Inspector of Police (L & O), Girinagar Police Station, Bangalore – 560 085.
2. Sri.S.R.Ajit, S/o S.R.Acharya, Aged about 41 years, R/o No.14, 2nd Cross Road, 9th Main Road, B.T.M. Layout, Bangalore–560029. …Respondents (By Sri. I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP II for R1;
Vide order dated 26.02.2018 notice to R2 held sufficient) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.87/2016, dated 16.04.2016, by the respondent police, as per Annexure – A, pending on the file of the 24th ACMM, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore.
This Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served.
2. There seems to be serious dispute with regard to the possession of the properties. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are laying claim to the said properties, in respect of which a Civil Suit is pending between the parties in O.S.No.1536/2016. The allegations made against the petitioner is that the Civil Court had issued an order of status-quo and in violation of the said order, the petitioner herein trespassed into site No.91/3 and demolished the compound wall and a small shed erected in the said property.
3. A reading of the plaint in O.S.No.1536/.2016 would indicate that the petitioner claims to be the owner, in possession of site No.228-A, situate in 8th cross, SBM Colony, BSK-I stage, Bangalore-50. Since the allegations made against the petitioner, prima facie attract the offence under Section 447 and 448 r/w 34 of IPC, the matter requires to be investigated. Since the parties are agitating their rights before the Civil Court, an investigation into the alleged criminal offence will not prejudice the claim of the parties before the Civil Court. In the given set of facts, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Hence, I do not find any justifiable ground to stall the investigation. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to produce necessary documents in support of his contention before the Investigating Officer, which shall be duly considered by the Investigating Officer while forming an opinion under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.