IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 5731/2016 BETWEEN :
1. Sri. Ramaiah Reddy S/o. late Nagappa Aged about 73 years 2. Sri. Chandrashekar Reddy S/o. Ramaiah Reddy Aged about 48 years 3. Sri. Nikhil Reddy S/o. Chandrashekar Reddy Aged about 24 years Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are R/at. No. 203, A Block 2nd Floor, Aishwarya Opulence Next to Home Town Outer Ring Road Marathahalli Bangalore – 560 037. … PETITIONERS (By Sri. P. Shivakumar, Adv.) AND :
1. State of Karnataka by HAL Police Station Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru.
2. Smt. Annamma W/o. late Kannan Aged about 71 years R/a. No. 7 M. Gandhi Nagar Marathahalli Post Bangalore – 560 037. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-1 R-2 Sd. and unrepresented) ---
This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the complaint lodged by respondent No.
2 in Cr.No. 462/2015 now being numbered as C.C. No. 51209/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 427, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of X ACMM, Bangalore and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Section 341, 427, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Respondent No. 2 - Smt. Annamma claiming to be the owner of property in survey No. 223/2A measuring 10 guntas situated at Amanibellandru Khane, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, lodged a complaint against accused No. 1 and others on 29.06.2015 based on which crime No. 462/2015 was registered and after investigation charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners for the above offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and general in nature. The complainant has not disclosed the time and place of the alleged act of trespass and demolition of the shed. On the other hand petitioner No.1 had filed a suit against respondent No. 2/complainant in the year 2013 for a direction to defendant No. 1 therein – Smt. R. Kantamma to re-convey the property in survey No. 223/2A measuring 10 guntas. The complaint is therefore lodged only to exert pressure on the petitioners to agree to the illegal demand of respondent No. 2 in respect of the aforesaid property and hence initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners apart from being false and baseless is abuse of process of Court and therefore liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Respondent No. 2 is duly served and unrepresented.
5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.
1 has argued in support of the impugned charge sheet contending that acceptable material is collected in proof of the accusations made against the petitioners which prima facie constitute offences alleged in the charge sheet. With regard to the incident of demolition of the shed, the complainant had approached the CRE Cell and in order to pressurize the complainant to withdraw the said complaint, the petitioners have resorted to criminal force and intimidation and in that background there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. Respondent No. 2/complainant claims to be the owner of property in survey No. 223/A1 measuring 10 guntas of Amanibellandur Khane, Varthur Hobli, having purchased the same from one Smt. R. Kantamma in the year 1978. Petitioner No. 1 inturn has asserted a right to the very same property and has instituted a suit much earlier to the registration of the FIR in O.S. No. 796/2013. A copy of the plaint therein is produced by the petitioner at Annexure D. The averments made in the said plaint indicates that petitioner No. 1 had sold the aforesaid property to Smt. R. Kantamma under registered sale deed dated 04.04.1978, document No. 127/1978-79 subject to re-conveyance of the said property to petitioner No. 1. The said plaint clearly indicates that petitioner No. 1 sought re-conveyance of the said property from the erstwhile owner Smt. R. Kantamma.
The complainant was one of the defendants in the said suit and complainant also laid a claim to the said property for having purchased the same from Smt. R. Kantamma. The above facts clearly indicate that the dispute between the parties relates to the title to the said property which is the subject matter of a civil suit between the parties. More than 2 years after the institution of the above suit, the complainant has invoked criminal process alleging trespass and demolition of the shed said to have been constructed by her in the aforesaid property. The allegations made in this regard are vague and general and do not specify the time and place of commission of the alleged incident. According to the complainant, on 03.05.2015 the petitioners herein came near the above property and issued threats to her. These allegations even if accepted on their face value do not attract the offence of criminal trespass. Even otherwise, the complaint was lodged in respect of the alleged incident only on 29.06.2015 more than one and half months after the incident. Having regard to all the above facts and circumstances there is reason to believe that the complainant has resorted to criminal action only as a sequel to the civil suit filed by petitioner No. 1 against her and the erstwhile owner Smt. R. Kantamma. There is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant has laid any counter claim to the suit filed by petitioner No. 1 nor is there any material to show that she has complained about the alleged criminal acts committed by the petitioners during the pendency of the said civil suit. All these facts therefore indicate that solely as a sequel to the civil dispute pending between the parties, respondent No. 2 has resorted to criminal process which in the facts and circumstances of the case appear to be a clear abuse of process of Court.
8. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed.
Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in crime No. 462/2015 and the charge sheet filed against the petitioners in C.C. No. 51209/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 427, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.