IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.8250/2016 BETWEEN SRI SHIVANNA S/O. LATE SRI MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ARE RESIDENTS OF MELEKOTE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA – 562117.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI K.ABHINAV ANAND, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. OF SATHANUR POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117 2. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHANNAPATNA SUB-DIVISION, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117. RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001.
3. SRI AJITH SRINIVASAN S/O. LATE SRI. B.K.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.157, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.
4. SRI VINAY KARTHIK S/O SRI CHANDRAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PARTNER OF D.K.SURESH INFOTECH COMPANY, OFFICE OF SUVI GRANITES EXPORT COMPANY, NEAR MUDDEMADAPPA MESS, GANDHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560009.
ALSO RESIDING AT NO.50, AGA ALI KHAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
5. SRI YOGESH S/O SRI JEEVAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MAHALLI VILLAGE [SANGAMAL], UYYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRIMAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADV. FOR R3, R4 & R5 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1.08.2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A ACCEPTING THE ‘B’ FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.220/2013 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE LEARNED I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J./SPL. JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA, TO RECORD THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE PETR. AS COMPLAINANT AND RECORD OTHER EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PETR. IN CR. NO.220/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE STATION AND ADJUDICATE THE ATROCITY CASE AS PER LAW.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the third respondent.
2. Petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the acceptance of the ‘B’ report filed by the second respondent in Crime No.220/2013 by order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. A complaint came to be lodged on 26.08.2013 with the first respondent police station alleging the commission of offences under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (iv) & (v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 against the respondent Nos.3 to 5. The complaint came to be registered as Crime No.220/2013 and thereafter the complaint was taken up for investigation by the second respondent and the investigation by the second respondent culminated in a ‘B’ report which came to be filed in the Court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Ramanagara on 29.09.2014. The substratum of the dispute is the land comprising in Survey No.6 of Mahalli Village, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, measuring 3 Acres 15 Guntas. That the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in defiance of the interim order granted by the court tried to dispossess the complainant and his family members from the land in question and that they also caused criminal intimidation. The petitioner aggrieved by the ‘B’ final report filed its protest memo/objections. On filing of the ‘B’ final report the court issued notice on 03.11.2014 to the complainant and the complainant appeared before the court on 18.12.2014 and sought time to file his objections. Hearing was adjourned to 10.02.2015, the matter stood adjourned from 10.02.2015 to 23.02.2015. On 23.02.2015 a protest memo by way of objection came to be filed into court. Hearing was adjourned to 13.04.2015 for recording the statement of the petitioner- complainant. On 13.04.2015 though the complainant was present but time was sought for. Matter was adjourned to 19.05.2015. On the said date also though the complainant was present, time was sought and hearing was adjourned to 27.07.2015 for recording the statement. On 27.07.2015 yet again the complainant’s counsel i.e. the petitioner’s counsel, once again sought time. Hearing was again adjourned to 29.09.2015. Thereafter, as there was no representation, hearing was again adjourned to 18.11.2015. On 18.11.2015 again there being no representation, hearing was adjourned to 29.12.2015. On 29.12.2015 also there was no representation and matter was adjourned to 22.02.2016. Even on the said date, there was no representation. Hence, hearing was adjourned to 28.04.2016. On 28.04.2016 also there was no representation and same was the status even on the next date of hearing i.e. on 01.06.2016 and hearing was adjourned to 01.08.2016. On 01.08.2016 the court taking note of the fact that there has been no representation over the last several dates of hearing presumed that the party is not interested and took note of the fact that both the complainant and his counsel have been continuously absent, proceeded to accept the ‘B’ report.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner and that on the date fixed by the court the petitioner-complainant would appear and proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that a civil suit has already been filed and the same is pending before the court. It is seen that the complaint is of the year 2013 the very fact that the matter has been lingering on so many years would make the conduct of the petitioner’s suspect. If he was genuinely affected or was indeed hurt as he proclaims, he would have been diligent in prosecuting the case. Lack of diligence is writ large and negligence not only on the part of the complainant but also on counsel who is also continuously absent, in all probablility the petitioner aims to use this complaint as a handle to seek leverage in the civil disputes pending before the court.
No grounds is made out, petition is dismissed.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE