IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4259 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1 SRI. MUDDEGOWDA S/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2 SRI. ASWATHA RAMEGOWDA S/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3 SRI. MANJUNAGAPPA S/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4 SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5 SRI. TIRUMALLESH S/O. LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUDDANAPALYA YESHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 091 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN. S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY TAVAREKERE POLICE TAVAREKERE – 562 130 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 2 SRI. L ISMAIL FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.3, BDA WEST SUB-DIVISION VIJAYANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 040 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI. S. GANESH SHENOY,ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.331/2014 WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 143, 147, 341, 353, 504 AND 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash registration of the FIR in Crime No.331/2014 for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 353, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II appearing for the first respondent.
3. The case is registered against the petitioners based on the complaint lodged by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 7.5.2014 at about 11.30 am, when the complainant and his team were removing the illegal encroachments in Sy. No.51 of Gidadakonenahalli Village, the petitioners herein formed into an unlawful assembly and abused the complainant and obstructed removal of encroachment preventing the use of JCB.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that much earlier to the alleged incident, status quo order was obtained by the petitioners herein in OS No.5028/2013 against the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority [‘BDA’, for short], and therefore, the allegations of alleged obstructions are apparently false and baseless and hence the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is malicious and abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the order passed by this Court in MFA No.316/2014 dated 4.4.2014 and has emphasized that out of 4 acres of land in Sy. No.50, BDA had acquired only 2 acres 2 guntas, and the remaining extent of 1 acre 38 guntas was in possession of the petitioner No.1. The said order indicates that there was boundary dispute with regard to the land retained by the petitioners and the land acquired by the BDA. Under the said circumstances, without determining the boundaries of the disputed land, prosecution of the petitioners on the alleged accusations is a sheer abuse of process of Court.
6. Learned SPP-II appearing for the contesting respondent submits that the order passed by this Court in MFA No.316/2014 clearly indicates that there was a dispute with regard to enjoyment of the properties by the petitioners. The petitioners seek right to the property comprised in Sy. No.50 whereas the alleged incident has taken place while officials were clearing the encroachment in Sy. No.51. Therefore, on the basis of the contentions raised by the petitioners, there is no reason to stop investigation into the matter.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the accusations against the petitioners are that while the officials of the BDA were involved in clearing the encroachment in Sy. No.51, petitioners herein obstructed the officials from discharging their lawful duties and also abused and threatened them. The order relied on by the petitioners in MFA. No.316/2014 relates to Sy. No.50. A reading of the said order indicates that the petitioner No.1 is laying claim over Sy. No.50 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas. Even though it is observed in the said order that out of total extent of 4 acres comprised in the said survey number, an extent of 2 acres 2 guntas and remaining 1 acre 38 guntas is retained by the petitioner No.1, yet the alleged incident having taken place in Sy. No.51 over which petitioners do not have any claim, in my view, pendency of the suit or status quo order issued by the civil court has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the allegations made against the petitioners. Therefore, the allegations made against the petitioners require to be investigated. In view of the contentions urged by the petitioners disputing the identity of the property, investigating officer shall collect necessary evidence in this regard and conduct fair investigation and submit a report in accordance with law.
8. The petitioners are permitted to place all the records in their possession regarding the properties in question which shall be duly considered by the Investigating Officer.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-