Allowed

Geethabai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021CRL.P/8571/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, in two connected Criminal Petitions, allowed petitions to quash criminal proceedings involving alleged property trespass, damage, and intimidation. The Court held that since the underlying civil suit concerning possession was dismissed for non-prosecution, the charge under Section 448 IPC lost its foundation, making the prosecution remote and a misuse of process of the co

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos.2158/2015 and 2159/2015 are quashed.

Geethabai Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8571/2015 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.8572/2015

¶8

IN Crl.P.No.8571/2015:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

GEETHABAI

¶11

W/O KRISHNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT: RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA-577 401

¶12

INDRA BAI

¶13

W/O LATE LAXMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶14

OCC: AGRICULTURIST RAJENDRA NAGAR

¶15

SHIMOGA-577 401

¶16

KRISHNOJI RAO

¶17

S/O LATE JYOTHI RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶18

OCC: SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA – 577 401

¶19

4. GOPINATH

¶20

S/O LATE JYOTHI RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶21

OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE RAJENDRA NAGAR

¶22

SHIMOGA-577 401 … PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶24

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶25

¶26

AND :

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHADRAVATHI NEW TOWN POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401

¶28

RAMANANDA PANDITH S/O JAYADEVE PANDITH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: CONTRACTOR R/AT 3^RD CROSS, B.H. ROAD BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; V/O. DATED 30.06.2021 NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRL.PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2158/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC COURT, BHADRAVATHI.

¶32

IN Crl.P.No.8572/2015:

¶33

BETWEEN :

¶34

GEETHABAI

¶35

W/O KRISHNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT: RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA-577 201

¶36

INDRA BAI

¶37

W/O LAXMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST RAJENDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA-577 201

¶38

AMBARISH

¶39

S/O LATE LAXMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: GOVT. SERVANT BANGARAPPA BADAVANE BIDIRE, SHIMOGA-577 201

¶40

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶41

¶42

NAGARAJA S/O NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/AT AMEER AHAMED COLONY SHIMOGA-577 201 5. MUNNA S/O MUNEER SAB AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/AT AMEER AHAMED COLONY DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577 201

¶43

VELU S/O MARI MUTTU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/AT AMEER AHAMED COLONY DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577 201 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND :

¶44

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHADRAVATHI NEW TOWN POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301

¶45

JAYA PRAKASH PANDITH S/O RAMANANDA PANDITH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCC: ENGINEER R/AT. B.H. ROAD, 3^RD CROSS BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶46

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRL.PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2159/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC COURT, BHADRAVATHI.

¶47

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶48

¶49

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

COMMON ORDER

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits memo with copies of the documents.

¶52

Since two petitions involved common

¶53

questions of law and facts, they are taken up together for disposal by common order.

¶54

In the above two petitions, the proceedings

¶55

mentioned below are sought to be quashed:

¶56

Sl. No.	C.C.No.	Crime No.	Date of offence	Complainant
1	2158/2015	163/2014	17.07.2014	Ramanand Pandith
2	2159/2015	34/2015	27.02.2015	Jayaprakash Pandith

¶57

Respondent No.2 in C.C.No.2158/2015 is

¶58

the father of respondent No.2 in C.C.No.2159/2015, he filed complaint in Crime No.163/2014 alleging that despite an injunction order passed by the Civil Court, the petitioners and ten other persons trespassed into his house property and damaged the property. In that case, respondent No.1 police filed charge sheet on

¶59

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶60

¶61

21.06.2015 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and dropped the offence under Section 149 of IPC .

¶62

In Crime No.34/2015, the son filed

¶63

complaint alleging that on 27.02.2015 at 11:00 a.m., the petitioners of Crl.P.No.8572/2015 trespassed into the very same property obstructing the complainant and his father putting up construction on the disputed site and criminally intimidated them. In that case, respondent No.1 police filed charge sheet on 17.06.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 506, 149 of IPC.

¶64

The prosecution case in both the cases is as follows:

¶65

That Ramanand Pandith, the complainant in Crime No.163/2014 was the owner of site No.814 of Jadikatte Extension, Bhadravathi Town. He had constructed the Mangalore tiled house on that. The accused had demolished that. Therefore, he filed O.S.No.395/2013 before the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,

¶66

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶67

¶68

Bhadravathi against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.8571/2015 for permanent injunction. The Court had granted ex-parte temporary injunction. Despite such injunction order, on 17.07.2014 at 4.30 p.m. the accused trespassed into the property and damaged the property. Further, when the complainantparty were going on with the construction, on 27.02.2015, the accused-party again trespassed into the said property, obstructed the complainant-party from constructing the house. When the complainantparty questioned that, the accused-party intimidated them with the iron rods.

¶69

On filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance in both the cases and registered them in C.C.Nos.2158/2015 and 2159/2015. Petitioners were summoned to face the trial. Petitioners seek quashing of the said proceedings on the following grounds:

¶70

i) The dispute was purely Civil in nature;

¶71

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶72

¶73

ii) The complainant-party was not in possession of the property; and

¶74

(iii) Though initially temporary injunction was granted, the suit filed by the complainant-party was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the contention that the complainant party were in possession does not sustain.

¶75

Learned HCGP submits that the charge sheet records contain the statement of the witnesses, therefore, even if the suit is dismissed the petitioners have to face the trial and these are not fit cases to quash the proceedings.

¶76

The whole case of the complainant-party was based on the ex-parte temporary injunction order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.395/2013. The records produced by the petitioners’ counsel show that the complainant-party filed O.S.No.395/2013 claiming that they were in possession of the said property as on the date of the suit. The accused-party contested the said suit denying the possession of the

¶77

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶78

¶79

complainant-party and claiming that they were in possession of the property.

¶80

Though initially temporary injunction was granted, since the complainant-party did not appear to prosecute the suit, on 14.08.2017 the said suit came to be dismissed. There is nothing to show that thereafter respondent No.2 / plaintiff has taken any steps for restitution of the said suit. Respondent No.2 in both the cases though served have not appeared to contest the cases.

¶81

The charge under Section 448 of IPC in both the cases was based on the alleged possession of complainant-party. By dismissal of the said suit, now the said contention does not sustain. Since the other allegations attracting Section 427 and 506 IPC flow from the offence under Section 448 of IPC, they also do not sustain.

¶82

In view of dismissal of the suit, even if the proceedings were to continue against the accused-party their conviction for the offence punishable under Section

¶83

Crl.P.No.8571/2015 c/w Crl.P.No.8572/2015

¶84

¶85

448 of IPC is remote. Consequently, the chance of the prosecution succeeding for the other charges is remote. In such event, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the petitions are allowed.

¶86

The proceedings in C.C.Nos.2158/2015 and 2159/2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi are hereby quashed.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

Geethabai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geethabai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Surendra Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Manjunath Vs Smt. Sheela

Kumar Vs Chikkalingaiah

Mr Trevor Bull Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri H E Raghavendra Vs Sri Nagaraju

Mr Amit Nahata Vs State of Karnataka by