IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6673 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
U V VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKAIAH, RESIDING AT, NO.58-2-5, SANTAPET, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH-523 001.
(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2. SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED 48 YEARS, D/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA, RESIDING AT CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560049 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: N.BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING T0 QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.272/2016 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF A.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of FIR against him in Crime No.272/2016 of Avalahally Police Station under sections 506, 448 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Petitioner claims that he is absolute owner of agricultural land in Sy.No.55/1 measuring 37 guntas situated at Cheemasandra village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2005 executed by the mother and brothers of second respondent/complainant in favour of the wife of petitioner and since then, he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property. Under the said circumstances, he contends that the allegation of trespass leveled against the petitioner is baseless and ulteriorly motivated and hence, institution of prosecution against the petitioner being mala fide and vexatious is liable to be quashed.
3. On going through the records, it is noticed that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., on the specific allegation that on 22.08.2016 at 12 noon, petitioner herein tried to dispossess her from the shed. Learned Magistrate without considering the averments made in the complaint, straightaway referred the matter for investigation by the police. The averments made in the complaint are not supported by any affidavit as laid down in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. The complainant has not produced any supporting documents to show that she is the owner in possession of the aforesaid property. In the said circumstances, it was incumbent on learned Magistrate to apply his mind to the facts of the case before directing investigation into the matter. The impugned order is opposed to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAKSUD SAIYED vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, (2008) 5 SCC 668. In view of the above, impugned order and consequent registration of FIR are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.08.2016 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru and consequent registration of FIR in Crime No.272/2016 of Avalahally Police Station are quashed. The matter is remitted to learned Magistrate to consider the complaint afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maksud Saiyed case and Priyanka Srivastava case and proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss