IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4759 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI N C MANJE GOWDA S/O CHIKKE GOWDA URF PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NERALAKARE VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI-573201 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK (BY SRI: VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DR N B NANJAPPA S/O BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS FORMER MLA 2. SRI N B SHANKARLINGE GOWDA S/O BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. SRI N B RANGE GOWDA S/O BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ... PETITIONER 4. SRI N B BAIRE GOWDA S/O LATE BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 5. SRI N B SHIVE GOWDA S/O LATE BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI MAHALINGE GOWDA S/O LATE BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 7. SRI N R RAME GOWDA S/O LATE BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 8. SRI PARAMESH GOWDA S/O LATE BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING IN NERALAGERE VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI-573201 CHANNARAYAPATNA 9. DR N RAVINDRANATH S/O DR. N.B. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SHAKTHI NILAY, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573201.
10. N. B. RAMASWAMI S/O BAIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, GANESH NAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573201.
11. N B SHIVALINGEGOWDA S/O BAIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, CLERK, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI B.ED COLLEGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573201.
12. N B NANDISH S/O BAIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSING BOARD, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: N S SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN PCR NO.167/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ISSUE PROCESS TO THE ACCUSED PERSON WHILE ACTING U/S 204 CR.P.C.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna in PCR No.167/2012, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint in PCR No.167/2012 against 12 accused persons alleging that on 09.04.2012 at about 12 ‘o’ clock in the night, the accused persons demolished the pillars erected by the petitioner surrounding his properties and when he questioned the accused persons, he was abused and assaulted by the accused persons. It is further alleged that during the occurrence, the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons.
3. Though the incident is said to have taken place on 09.04.2012, the private complaint came to be filed on 29.05.2012. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the jurisdictional police submitted ‘B’ report. The petitioner herein filed a protest petition and to substantiate the case, examined himself as PW-1 and adduced the evidence of two more witnesses who were examined as PWs-2 and 3. Considering their evidence, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the private complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat submits that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the sworn statement of the petitioner and the witnesses would indicate that the petitioner has made out the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 141, 142, 143, 144, 427, 506, 427, 451, 458, 448, 323, 324 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate without considering the statements of the petitioner and the witnesses has rejected the complaint; the trial court has failed to note that the allegations made against the accused persons prima-facie make out the offences; the learned Magistrate had not looked into the material leading to the conviction of the accused, which approach has resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence seeks to quash the impugned order.
5. The case of the petitioner is that he was the owner of Sy.No.9 of Neralakere Village, Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. The private complaint is wholly silent about any civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the accused in respect of the said properties. But in ‘B’ report, there is a mention that a civil suit is pending between the parties, which matter has been suppressed by the petitioner in the private complaint filed by him. No materials have been produced either along with the private complaint or the sworn statement to point out that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties in question. Be that as it may, according to the complainant(PW-1), on the date of the incident, i.e., on 9.4.2012, at about 12 ‘o’ clock, he was sleeping in the house and at that time, respondents/accused had destroyed the pillars erected surrounding his properties. According to the complainant, during the incident, he was sleeping in his house. Thereafter, he and his brothers went near the land and questioned the accused persons and at that time, accused Nos.1 and 9 threatened him that they would bury him in the land and they caught hold of the collar of the complainant and assaulted him. As against this statement, PW-2 has stated that on 09.04.2012 at about 12 ‘o’ clock in the night, he was sleeping in his house, his brother Manchegowda(complainant) woke him up and told that somebody has demolished the stone pillars erected surrounding their property. At about 12.15 p.m., when he and his brother went to question the accused persons, they found the accused persons involved in breaking stone pillars and at that time, accused No.1-Nanjappa and accused No.9- N. Ravindranath threatened to kill him and assaulted the complainant, as a result, he fell unconscious. PW-3 has deposed that at about 12 ‘0’ clock in the night, the complainant and his brother woke him up and thereafter all of them proceeded towards the lands of the complainant. At that time, accused No.1 Nanjappa and accused No.9 Ravindranath assaulted the complainant.
6. Material contradictions and discrepancies surfacing the statements of the witnesses lead to doubt the incident alleged in the complaint. Apart from delay in lodging the complaint, inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses, with regard to the core case and the suppression of the civil suit pending between the parties are the other factors which do not inspire confidence to accept the case put forward by the complainant. In the wake of the above material, the trial court was well justified in refusing to take cognizance of the alleged offences.
The material produced by the complainant does not prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences. For all these reasons, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the civil court for appropriate reliefs. The observations made in this order shall not affect the rights of the parties before the civil court.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-