IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7906 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI V S ARAVINDAN S/O. V.R. SINGARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.49/1, 2ND CROSS, NANJAPPA GARDEN, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: VIGNESHWARA U, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. DODDAKKA W/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 6. SMT. MADEVI W/O. LATE DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 7. SRI. HARISH S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE R/AT BOVIPALYA VILLAGE, NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA, SADAHALLI POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI: E.VENKATARAMI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE P.C.R.No.421/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 is absent.
Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of private complaint against him under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed the above complaint before the Magistrate inter-alia making allegations that the petitioner herein has brought about a sale deed in respect of the property belonging to them and made an attempt to trespass into their properties. The averments made in this regard find place in paras 4 and 5 of the complaint which read as under:-
“4. It is submitted that the complainants are illiterates and belongs to the schedule community and they have no knowledge about the revenue documents as such they are not aware of transfer of khatha in favour of accused in respect of the above said property, hence by aggrieving by the revenue proceedings the complainants had filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner Bengaluru North Sub- Division Bengaluru against the accused and other in R.A.(BNA).108/2014-15. Copy of the appeal memo in R.A.(BNA).108/2014-15 is produced as Document No.4. It is submitted that in the appeal bearing R.A.(BNA).108/2014-15 there is an order of status quo against the accused in respect of the above said property. Copy of the order sheet in R.A.(BNA).108/2014-15 is produced as Document No.5.
5. The complainants submits that in spite of the civil dispute is pending in Appeal No. R.A.(BNA).108/2014-15 and an order of status quo, the accused on 4.7.2015 made attempts to trespass in the above said complainants property in a illegal manner, hence the complainant No.6 herein also lodged a complaint to Panchayath Development Officer, Doddajala Gramapanchayath to take suitable action against the accused and also lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional Chikka Jala Police, but the police failed to register a case against the accused and issued acknowledgement. Copies of the Acknowledgment dated 04.07.2015 is produced as Document No.6.
4. From the above averments, it is evident that the registered sale deed has come into existence in respect of the disputed properties on 07.02.2006. According to the respondents, said sale deed is already challenged before the civil court and the matter is pending in R.A.No(BNA).108/2014- 2015.
5. Going by the averments made in the petition, it can be gathered that the complainants/respondent No.2-7 have not obtained favourable order either for cancellation of the sale deed or with regard to possession of the properties. As a result, it can be presumed that even possession of the properties is continued with the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint that on 04.07.2015, the petitioner herein attempted to trespass into the above properties appears to be highly improbable. The said allegation appears to have been made only to make out a ground to initiate criminal process during the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties. Even with regard to the alleged attempt to trespass, the allegations are bald and do not constitute the ingredients of offence under Section 448 Indian Penal Code. Likewise, the complaint does not contain any specific averments constituting the offences under Sections 441 or 420 or 120B Indian Penal Code. The only averment made in this regard is at paras 10 and 11 of the complaint which reads as under:-
10. The complainants submits that the accused with the aid and assistance and connivance of accused have trespassed into the complaint above said property and is liable to be punishable under section 441 of the CPC and also accused have committed and offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
11. The complainants submits that since accused is all party to criminal conspiracy to commit the above offence or cheating the complainants, he is all guilty of offence punishable under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
6. The manner in which respondent Nos.2 to 7 have made wild and omnibus allegations against the petitioner indicate that the respondent Nos.2 to 7 having failed to obtain favourable orders in the civil proceedings have taken recourse to criminal action with the ulterior motive to compel the petitioner to agree to their demand.
7. Insofar as invocation of the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) is concerned, the only allegation made in the complaint in para 12 reads as under:-
12. “The complainants submits that since the accused scrolled the complainants by using their caste as Vaddiranna Makkala Kondabidathini, hence the accused is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 2 and 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8. It is not clear as to when such incident has taken place. When respondent Nos.2 to 7 have failed to substantiate the alleged act of trespass, question of petitioner abusing respondent Nos.2 to 7 calling out their caste does not arise at all. These allegations do not satisfy the requirements of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of SC/ST Act. The manner in which these allegations are made in the complaint leads to the inference that respondent Nos.2 to 7 have misused the provision of law and have maliciously instituted criminal action against the petitioner apparently to force the petitioner to settle to their terms. Therefore, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution instituted against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court and cannot be allowed to continue.
For the said reasons, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.421/2015 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-