Quashed

Krishnamurthy Y v. State by Malur Police

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2021CRL.P/935/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ and Criminal petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings initiated arising from alleged abuse and assault during a pending civil dispute. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the matter must be adjudicated in the pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.561/2020 and C.C.No.407/2020 arising from disputes involving a pending civil suit.

Krishnamurthy Y Vs State by Malur Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14154/2020 (GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.935/2021

¶7

IN WRIT PETITION NO.14154/2020:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SRI RAGHUBHUSHAN THEERTHA SWAMIJI, MATADHIPATHI SRI AKSHOBHYA THEERTHA BALEGARU MATH, S/O KESHAVA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BALEGARU MATH, BALEGARU KASABA HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432.

¶10

SRI ANANDA, S/O RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT BALAGARU VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI -577 432.

¶11

SRI UTTANAPADA RAJA, S/O VASUDEVA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SHIVARAJPURA, THIRTHAHALLI-577 432.

¶12

SRI RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LAKSAMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KELAKERE VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI-577 432. … PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MALUR PS, REP. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O GOPALACHAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT BALAGARU, KUDUMALLIGE, THIRTHAHALLI-577 432. … RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI MAHESHA C.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.561/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT THIRTHAHALLI TALUK INCLUDING THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURES-A, B, C AND D.

¶20

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.935/2021:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

KRISHNAMURTHY Y, S/O Y. GOPALACHAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, BALAGARU (MAJARE), BILUVE, KUDUMALLIGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA -577232.

¶23

SURESHA, S/O CHANDRASHEKARA H.T., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶24

¶25

RESIDING AT NO.16, HUGALAVALLI (MAJARE), BILUVE-VILLAGE, KUDUMALLIGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-577232. … PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI NAGARAJA K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE BY MALUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶29

B.R. ANANDA, S/O RAGHAVENDRACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BALAGARU, KUDUMALLIGE-POST, THIRTHAHALLI-TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA -577232. … RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2020 IN C.C.NO.407/2020 (CR.NO.130/2019 OF MALUR P.S., UNDER SECTIONS 504, 324 R/W 34 OF IPC) AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI.

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION AND CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

W.P.No.14154/2020 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

¶36

the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.561/2020 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶37

Crl.P.No.935/2021 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 04.09.2020 in C.C.No.407/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli.

¶38

The factual matrix of the case in W.P.No.14154/2020 is that respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint before the police making the allegation that the petitioners have wrongfully restrained the complainant, assaulted and abused. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered.

¶39

The factual matrix of the case in Crl.P.935/2021 is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners making the allegation that on 22.12.2019 at about

¶40

¶41

2.30 p.m., the incident was taken place and the petitioners abused and assaulted him. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶42

In both the petitions, the petitioners have contended that the alleged incident was taken place on 22.12.2019 at about 2.30 p.m. and there were exchange of abusive words between the parties and wrongfully restrained them. It is also contended that there is a civil dispute between the parties and suit is pending in O.S.No.171/2018 filed by petitioner No.3 in the writ petition and in the said suit also respondent No.2 is a party to the proceedings. The alleged incident has not taken place and based on the complaint and counter complaint, these two cases are registered. The police based on these two separate complaints, have investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet for the above offences. The petitioners have also placed a copy of the original plaint in O.S.No.171/2018 and the same discloses that civil suit is pending between the parties.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.935/2021 submits that M.A.No.14/2019 is pending before

¶44

¶45

the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli and there is an order of injunction. When the order of injunction has been stayed in the proceedings in M.A.No.14/2019, the present alleged incident has taken place.

¶46

Having perused the material available on record, both the parties have approached this Court for seeking the relief of quashing and also having taken note of the offences invoked, the offences invoked are under Section 341, 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. When a civil suit is pending before the Court in respect of issue involved between the parties, the matter has to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. Taking into note the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that both the cases are registered against the rival parties and investigation has been conducted and charge-sheet has been filed and both the counsel are also not disputing the fact that the original suit is pending and also arising out of the said original suit, M.A. is also pending, hence the parties can adjudicate the issue in a civil suit.

¶47

¶48

In view of the discussions made above, the

¶49

proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.561/2020 and C.C.No.407/2020 are hereby quashed.

¶50

With these observations, the petitions are disposed

¶51

of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Krishnamurthy Y v. State by Malur Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamurthy Y v. State by Malur Police

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

Shadrach Solomon Vs Mahalakshmi Layout Ps

Smt. Malavika Hegde Vs Poornesh K

3M India Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes (Legal)

Sri Vijaykumar Vs Smt Sworaba Gopinath

Smt. S G Meghana Vs Sri Amith Telkar

Prashanth Jha Vs State of Karnataka