Dismissed

Smt. Sharadamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2020CRL.P/753/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from a 2019 property dispute. Finding that a 1997 civil decree was inapplicable to fresh allegations, the court held the petition unmaterial and directed joint investigation of both parties' complaints.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing proceedings is dismissed; Investigating Officer directed to investigate both complaints together.

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.753 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.753 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O LATE S HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SIDDANAKATTE VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 226.

¶10

SRI.S.H.PRASANNA KUMAR NAYAKA S/O LATE S.HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SIDDANAKATTE VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 226. ALSO AT: OFFICE NO.11, 1^ST FLOOR KURUBARA SANGHA HOSTEL BUILDING 2^ND MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 009. ... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.NITIN.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE TUMKURU DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 009.

¶14

SMT.GIRIYAMMA W/O THORIYAPPA

¶15

Crl.P.No.753 of 2020

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SINGADAHALLI, KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR-572 226. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.137/2019 OF CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.447 AND 379 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are before this court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No.137/2019 registered by the Chikkanayakanahalli Police for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of the IPC, now pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Court, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumakuru District.

¶23

Sri. Nitin R., learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the above complaint is a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint apart from being

¶24

Crl.P.No.753 of 2020

¶25

¶26

motivated and malafide. He submits that the complaint arises out of a civil dispute pertaining to the property bearing Sy.No.50/3B measuring 33 guntas, which is claimed to be owned by petitioner No.1’s husband late S.Hanumanthaiah, who had filed a suit in O.S.No.35/1997, which came to be decreed on 15^th April 2010 injuncting the defendants therein, one amongst them being the complainant in the present complaint, from interfering with the possession of said Hanumanthaiah.

¶27

On the above basis, Sri.Nitin.R. would submit that respondent No.2 had tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners as also created a law and order situation in the property. In view thereof, petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint before the Chikkanayakanahalli Police on 29.10.2019 at 11.00 a.m. as against respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 448, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶28

Crl.P.No.753 of 2020

¶29

¶30

He submits that as a counter-blast to the said compliant, respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint on 29.10.2019 at 17:45 hours i.e., subsequent to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 alleging the above offences.

¶31

Relying on the aforesaid three documents, Sri.Nitin.R., learned counsel would submit that the matter relating to a property dispute being civil in nature, the present complaint is not maintainable and is required to be quashed.

¶32

Having perused the complaints filed by the first petitioner and respondent No.2, as also the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35/1997, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35/1997 being dated 15^th April 2010, though of some assistance could not be of any such assistance to quash the proceedings, more so when the dispute is of the year 2019, 9 years after the decree when there is a complaint and counter complaint by both the parties. In view

¶33

Crl.P.No.753 of 2020

¶34

¶35

thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. However, in the interest of justice, since both the complaints are pending before the same Police Station, the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station is directed to investigate both the complaints together.

¶36

With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

KNM/-

Smt. Sharadamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharadamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs a N Moggannagowda

Sri Jodhraj Vs Smt Prabha Bharat Shah

Smt. M.P. Sridevi Vs Sri. R. Chandrappa

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

Paul Vincent S/O Vincent, C.P, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Elavarasan Mani Vs Indian Institute of Managment Bangalore