IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3223 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Parasmal Dungarwal S/o Sri.Ram Devji Dungarwal Aged 45 years Residing at No.73, II Floor II Main Road, Seshadripuram Bangalore – 560 020.
2. Sri.K.L.Shivaliangaiah S/o late Linge Gowda Aged 63 years Residing at No.174/Y 13th Main, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010.
3. Sri.K.Raju S/o Kannappan Aged 31 years Residing at No.19 Annayappa Garden New Thippasandra Bangalore – 560 075.
…Petitioners (By Sri.B.N.Suresh, Advocate) AND:
1. State by Vijayapura Police Vijayapura, Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District – 562 135.
2. The Station House Officer Vijayapura Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District – 562 135.
3. Mr.P.Murthy S/o Pilla Thimmarayappa Aged 38 years Residing at Avathi Village Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District – 562 135.
...Respondents (By Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1 & R2 Sri.Aravind C.Desai, Advocate for R3 - absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the orders dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Devanahalli in C.C.No.4687/2013 consequently by accepting the ‘B’ report filed by the respondent police.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Counsel for the respondent No.3 is absent.
2. Respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before the Vijayapura police alleging trespass by the petitioners. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.144/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 427, 180 read with Section 149 of IPC. After investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report. Respondent No.3-complainant filed his protest petition and let-in his sworn statement. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above offences and issued summons to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the properties wherein alleged trespass is said to have taken is in the actual possession of the petitioners themselves. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 purchased the said properties by a registered sale deed dated 24.09.2004 and since then, petitioners are in actual possession and enjoyment of the said properties and therefore, question of petitioners trespassing into the aforesaid properties does not arise at all. Further, he submits that on account of the interference caused by the complainant-respondent No.3 in the matter of enjoyment of the said properties, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit against respondent No.3 in O.S.No.534/2007 and after trial, permanent injunction order has been passed by the Civil Court on 03.09.2012, which indicates that the allegations made against petitioners are wholly false and baseless and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners being malafide and ulteriorly motivated are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned SPP-II appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Investigating Officer having failed to collect supporting material in proof of the accusations, ‘B’ report has been submitted.
5. A perusal of the complaint filed by 3rd respondent reveals that except making bald allegation that the petitioners herein were found laying electric lines in the properties comprised in Sy.Nos.95/12 and 95/13, respondent No.3 did not produce any material before the Court to show his possession or title over the said properties. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced unimpeachable documents by way of registered sale deed and the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.534/2007, which prima facie disclose that the petitioners are in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties in question. Therefore, the petitioners trespassing into the said properties does not arise at all. Respondent No.3 apprehending adverse order in the civil suit filed by the petitioners appears to have set the criminal law in motion by making wide and unfounded allegations of trespass, which prima facie is proved to be false. In the said circumstances, continuation of the said proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
6. For the above reasons, petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.4687/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*