Dismissed

Anand Nagappa Pattan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022CRL.P/100068/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings filed under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506 IPC arising from a property dispute, holding that disputed questions of fact must be tried and the court cannot usurp trial court powers at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1870/2018 dismissed.

Anand Nagappa Pattan Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100068 OF 2019 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ANAND NAGAPPA PATTAN

¶10

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, R/O: NO.91, 3RD CROSS, GKW LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE AND SRI.A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUIGH ATHANI POLICE STATION.

¶15

SUREKHA GURASIDDA KAMBALE

¶16

AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SIDDARTH NAGAR, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. GIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 NOTICE SERVED)

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE C.C.NO.1870/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, ATHANI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 323, 354, 504, 506 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner, who is accused, has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1870/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani for the offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 504, 506 of IPC.

¶25

The petitioner has pleaded that he is a Law Graduate and served as Assistant Public Prosecutor and as a judicial officer till 2014 and now he is a practicing advocate at Bangalore. His father by name Nagappa Balaku Pattan acquired a house and agricultural land as his self-acquired properties. He also constructed a house at Athani. There was a boundary dispute between him and neighbour Anil Krishnappa Pattan and as such, he filed

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶28

O.S. No.247/2012 on the file of III-Additional Civil Judge, Athani, which is pending. In respect of the said house, he has executed a registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner. His father has made similar arrangement with regard to other properties in favour of brothers and sisters of the petitioner. Nagappa Pattan died on 08.07.2013 and in O.S.No.247/2012, the petitioner has come on record as his legal heir to protect the suit property.

¶29

At the instigation of outsiders, respondent No.2, who is no other than the sister of petitioner has filed suit for partition and also started filing false complaints against the petitioner. She filed C.C.No.3722/2014 and C.C.No.121/2016 and also filed a private complaint in P.C.R.No.74/2017 falsely alleging that on 01.03.2017, after the court proceedings, the petitioner abused and assaulted her. After investigation, it is registered as C.C.No.1870/2018. The allegation made in the charge sheet are false. Due the litigation pending between the parties, a false complaint is filed. In fact, after filing of criminal complaint, respondent No.2 has chosen to file

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶32

O.S.No.328/2014 for partition and separate possession and therefore, prays to quash the proceedings.

¶33

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the incident has not at all taken place. On 01.03.2017, petitioner attended the court proceedings in O.S.No.247/2012 for giving his evidence and in fact his evidence was recorded and misusing the said fact, respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. There is also no medical evidence to prove the allegation of assault on respondent No.2. Petitioner has filed criminal petition No.101959/2015 seeking quashing of Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3722/2014 and it is allowed. He also filed Criminal Petition No.101065/2016 to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.121/2016. However, it is rejected. There is no material to proceed against the petitioner and has sought for quashing of the same.

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶36

On the other hand, learned HCGP representing the respondent No.1 submits that the charge sheet averments prima facie establish the fact that on 01.03.2017 after the Court proceedings, petitioner took respondent No.2 to task for litigating against the petitioner and abused and assaulted her. In fact, she took treatment as an out-patient and filed a complaint on 03.03.2017. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner and prays to reject the petition.

¶37

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶38

Petitioner is the brother of respondent No.2. From the materials placed on record, it is evident that respondent No.2 has filed O.S.No.328/2014 claiming partition in the properties owned by the family as ancestral and joint family properties and she is having a definite share. It appears in respect of house property, the father of petitioner and respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.247/2012 against one Anil Krishnappa Pattan

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶41

seeking easementary rights. After the death of their father, it appears the petitioner has came on record as his legal representative. Respondent No.2 has also filed impleading application and she has been impleaded as plaintiff No.2. In this background, the relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2 is estranged. Based on the complaints filed by respondent No.2, C.C.No.3722/2014 and C.C.No.121/2016 and C.C.No.1870/2018 are registered. Criminal Petition No.101065/2016 filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.121/2016 is rejected. Criminal Petition No.101959/2015 filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3722/2014 is allowed.

¶42

Now the petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1870/2018 contending that on account of civil dispute, a false complaint came to be filed against him.

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶45

On perusal of the materials placed on record it

¶46

indicates that after conducting a detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner. In addition to the complainant-CW1, there are two other eyewitnesses, who are cited as CW4 and CW8. On the alleged date of incident i.e. on 01.03.2017, the petitioner has also taken treatment as an out-patient. The material placed on record in the charge sheet makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner.

¶47

The complaint averments itself goes to show

¶48

that on account of civil dispute, on the date of the incident, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the complainant and kicked her as a result of which she fell down from the steps and the incident has taken place in the Court premises. These facts are to be established through trial and at this stage, disputed question of facts cannot be decided in a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot usurp the powers of the Trial Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there are no

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 100068 of 2019

¶51

grounds and the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The petition is dismissed.

¶54

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of

¶55

accordingly.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

YAN

Anand Nagappa Pattan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Nagappa Pattan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Shivaji Vasant Patil

Sangappa S/O Irappa Sudi Vs the State of Karnataka

Prabhakar S/O. Melappa Yadannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basava Enterprises Vs C.S. Krishnadevaraya

Shri Kotresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Yogesh S/O Gururaj Acharya Vs Shamalal S/O Udavdas Wadhwa