Allowed

Venkata Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021CRL.P/8778/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed the Criminal Petition, holding that the criminal proceedings were vexatious and retaliatory given pending civil and administrative proceedings regarding land ownership. The court quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.589/2018 as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.589/2018 pending before PCJ & JMFC, Shidlagatta stood quashed qua the petitioners.

Venkata Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8778/2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

VENKATA REDDY S/O SEETARAMAIAH HINDU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶9

NARAYANA SWAMY S/O. K. VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶10

BABU

¶11

S/O. SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶12

JAGANNATHA S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶13

SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶14

MUNIRAJU

¶15

S/O LATE MUNI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶16

SRINIVASA S/O BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶17

¶18

8. KIRAN S/O BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶19

SRINIVASA S/O M. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶20

MUKESH S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶21

11. SUPRITH

¶22

S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶23

12. VINAY S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶24

DEVARAJU S/O SETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶25

SRINIVAS

¶26

S/O. VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: ANKATATTI VILLAGE SHIDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -01

¶28

... PETITIONERS

¶29

[BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N., ADV.]

¶30

¶31

AND

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIDLAGATTA RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 01

¶33

C. SHAME GOWDA S/O. LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O ANKATATTI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK

¶34

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101

¶35

... RESPONDENTS

¶36

[BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1

¶37

(PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶38

SRI. B.C. RAJANNA, ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT)]

¶39

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.589/2018 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIDLAGATTA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 323, 447, 427, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

This petition calls in question the proceedings in

¶43

C.C.No.589/2018 arising out of Crime No.248/2017.

¶44

¶45

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶46

petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 had remained absent and this Court on

¶47

02.12.2021 had passed the following order:

¶48

" ORDER

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the present lis stands covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8777/2018, as the present proceedings is an offshoot of the complaint registered, which was the subject matter of Crl.P.No.8777/2018.

¶50

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 on both the occasions i.e., forenoon and afternoon.

¶51

As a last chance, awaiting appearance of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, list the matter on 07.12.2021.

¶52

In the event, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 is not present on

¶53

¶54

07.12.2021, the matter would be decided in his absence."

¶55

Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard.

¶56

The issue in the writ petition is akin to what is decided in Crl.P.No.8777/2018. Though this is a different crime number, the allegations, accused and the complainant are the same in both these cases. This Court in Crl.P.No.8777/2018 has held as follows:

¶57

"3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

¶58

The complainant is in possession of certain land, which the petitioners herein contend that it belongs to the Government and the complainant is an encroacher of the said land. The petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.243/2017 seeking declaration and mandatory injunction, in which, the complainant is defendant No.9. The said suit is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. The petitioners herein also

¶59

¶60

instituted further proceedings before the Court constituted to consider the cases of land under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 on 25.01.2017.

¶61

4. After institution of these proceedings, the complainant himself institutes O.S.No.149/2017 against all the petitioners arraying them as defendants in the said suit. The suit is for temporary injunction. The trial Court, by its order dated 10.11.2017, has declined to grant injunction in favour of the complainant in respect of the alleged property.

¶62

5. The complainant during the pendency of all these proceedings on 28.03.2017 registers a complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “ gÀªÀjUÉ,

¶63

¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀ ¸À¤ßzsÁ£ÀPÉÌ

¶64

¶65

¶66

«µÀAiÀÄ: CPÀæªÀÄªÁV UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ

¶67

¸Áé«Ä: F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, F ¢£À ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 7 UÀAmÉ 30 ¤«ÄµÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è, £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.96/5 gÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À°è 0.27 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ F d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä »jAiÀÄgÀ PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 60 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ, «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÁUÀ ¹ ±ÁªÉÄÃUËqÀ ©£ï ¯Émï ZËqÀ¥Àà DzÀ £À£Àß ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ D d«ÄÃ¤£À°è ¥ÀºÀtÂ SÁvÉ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Ä PÀ®Äè PÀÆZÀzÀ ªÀÄÄ¼ÀÄî PÀA©AiÀÄ ¨ÉÃ°AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ vÉÆÃlªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. F ¢£À F eÁUÀzÀ°è zÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ±ÉqÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.

¶68

ªÉAPÀlgÉrØ ©£ï ¹ÃvÁgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå, 2) zÉÃªÀgÁeï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¹ÃvÀgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå, ¢Ã¥ÀPï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï r. ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï, dUÀ¢Ã±ï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà, ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà, ¨Á§Ä ©£ï ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï, «£ÀAiÀiï ©£ï ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï, ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ªÀÄÄ¤£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà, ¦ ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ¯ÉÃmï ¦¼Àî¥Àà, UÀuÉÃ±ï ©£ï ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ¦, £ÁUÉÃ±ï ©£ï ¦ ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï, £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«Ä ¯ÉÃmï ªÉAPÀlgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà, ±Àæ?F¤ªÁ¸ï ©£ï ¨Áål¥Àà, QgÀuï ©£ï ¨Áål¥Àà, ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ©£ï ZËqÀ¥Àà, ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï

¶69

¶70

ªÉAPÀlgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà, ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ©£ï ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±À¥Àà, ¸ÀÄ¦æÃvï ©£ï ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï ©£ï ¥Á¥ÀtÚ, ªÀÄÄSÉÃ±ï ©£ï ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ KPÁ KQ ªÀiÁgÀPÁ¸ÀÛçUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄÄZÀÄÑ zÉÆuÉÚUÀ½AzÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä zÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ±Éqï£ÀÄß PÉqÀ«zÁÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÀµÀÖªÀiÁr ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¥Áæt ¨sÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ gÀPÀëuÉ PÉÆlÄÖ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À jÃw PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É. ”

¶71

6. The complaint is an omnibus statement made against all the accused contending or alleging that all the accused entered into the land belonging to the complainant and have destroyed the cattle shed and a case of criminal trespass is made out on the aforesaid act of the petitioners. This complaint becomes an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC and THE police after investigation has filed charge sheet as well. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court.

¶72

¶73

7. The facts as narrated hereinabove would clearly divulge the proceedings for unauthorised occupation of Government land is pending before competent Court dealing with land grabbing cases and a civil suit that is instituted by the petitioners against the complainant in O.S.No.243/2017 is pending adjudication, in which, the complainant is defendant No.9. Therefore, as a retaliatory measure, the complainant has registered the said complaint which by itself is absolutely bald.

¶74

8. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners are not the persons, who are claiming the property against the complainant. They are the residents of the village, who have filed cases against the complainant for his unauthorised occupation of Government land. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that it is an act of arm twisting by the complainant against the petitioners for having registered several legal proceedings to dispossess the complainant from the land that he is holding. IF, on the facts, complaint and charges, trial is permitted, it would be an

¶75

¶76

abuse of the process and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶77

following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶80

(ii) Proceedings pending in C.C.No.666/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta stands quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned."

¶81

Therefore, for the reasons indicated in

¶82

Crl.P.No.8777/2018, this petition is also allowed.

¶83

The proceedings in C.C.No.589/2018 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,

¶84

Shidlagatta stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

Venkata Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkata Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Harish K L Vs the District Electoral Officer

Shivananda. H. S. Vs Vidyashree H. E.

Sri S v Ramesh Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Zakir Hussain @ Wajid Ahmed Vs Bibi Ayesha

Sri. Dr. Badekil Venkataramana Bhat Vs Sri N.S. Vadiraj

Wipro Limited Vs State Represented by