Allowed

R Prashantha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022CRL.P/2842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings regarding alleged property offences. Despite a charge sheet, the court held that since possession and title were disputed in pending specific performance suits, the allegations required determination by civil courts and continued criminal trial would abuse the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Complaint, FIR, charge sheet, and order taking cognizance are quashed.

R Prashantha Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2842 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI R PRASHANTHA S/O S. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.34, 6TH CROSS, SANKESHWARA EXTENSION N.R. MOHALLA

¶10

MYSORE - 570007

¶11

SRI MANJU N AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O NANJUNDA SHETTY R/AT NO.120/A, 4TH CROSS A BLOCK, GANESHA NAGAR N.R. MOHALLA MYSORE - 570007

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI N. RAVI S/O NINJANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT 7TH CROSS N R MOHALLA MYSORE - 570007

¶14

SRI R. HARISHA S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HEGGADIHALLI VILLAGE MALLIPATNA HOBLI, ARAKALGUDU TALUK HASSAN - 573102

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶17

SRI A. RAJA S/O BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.23, GANESHANAGARA B BLOCK N R MOHALLA MYSORE - 570007

¶18

SRI D. ROOPESHA S/O DEVARAJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE NEAR BYRAWESHWARA TEMPLE MYSORE - 570007

¶19

SRI S ROHITH S/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO 22 15TH MAIN 2ND STAGE SIDDARTHA NAGAR MYSORE - 570011

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR K N.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KONANUR P S ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT REP. BY SPP BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE - 560001

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶26

SMT PARVATHI W/O CHANDRASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KONANUR TOWN KONANUR HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573130

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR SRI. DINESH KUMAR K. RAO, ADV. FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRL.P FILED IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.06.2020 AND FIR IN CR.NO.140/2020 REGISTERED BY 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148, 341,504,354,323,506(B),427 R/W 149 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-F1. b) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.668/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,504,427,506 R/W 149 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-J. c) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC - II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,504,427,506 R/W 149 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-J1.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.663/2020 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Arakalgud, arising out of

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶35

Crime No.140 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 354, 504, 427 and 506B read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶36

Heard Sri K.N.Shashidhar, learned counsel appearing

¶37

for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶38

The brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

¶39

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant, who claims to be an agreement holder from the hands of one Smt. Geethamma, the owner of the property. The 1^st petitioner/R.Prashantha is the son of Smt. Geethamma and other petitioners are said to be the relatives or friends of the 1^st petitioner. Smt. Geethamma and R. Prashantha seek to register a complaint before the Police on the ground that the complainant along with others had picked up a quarrel and assaulted the 1^st petitioner, in particular. The parties were called and the

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶42

complaint was closed on the ground that possession of the property itself was in doubt.

¶43

Long after the said complaint sought to be registered, the present complaint is registered by the complainant on 21.06.2020, alleging that the petitioners have entered the property of the complainant, damaged the crops and have taken away certain materials that were lying on the land of the complainant. This became a crime in Crime No.140 of 2020. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the afore-quoted offences. The learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences, lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that the complainant is an agreement holder from the hands of Smt. Geethamma, who is alleged to have been executed on 13-05-2002 and on that score, she has filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2019, after 17 years of the alleged agreement. Finding the case very bleak before the civil Court, she has sought to set the criminal law in motion without there being any substance.

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶47

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would refute the submissions to contend that notwithstanding the fact that the agreement was of the year 2002, the complainant was put in possession of the property and since petitioners have indulged themselves in a manner which would become the offences punishable as aforequoted, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in the trial.

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶49

A complaint was sought to be registered by the petitioners against the complainant on 30^th May 2020, in which the police closed the case by the following endorsement:

¶50

"�ೕವ� �ೕ�ರುವ ದೂರು ಅ��ೆ ಸಂಬಂ��ದಂ�ೆ ಈ�ಾಗ�ೇ ಚ೦ದ��ೇಖ�ರವರು ದೂರು �ೕ�ದು ಸದ! "ೕ#ೆ�ೆ ಕಂ%ಾಯ ಅ�'ಾ!ಗ(�ೆ ಜ*ೕ�ನ ,ಾ-�ೕ.ಾನುಭವದ01 2ಾರು ಇರು�ಾ4#ೆಂದು ಸ567ಕರಣ �ೕಡುವಂ�ೆ ಮನ; ಸ01�ದು , <ಾನ= ತಹ@ೕ�ಾ ರರು ಸ567ಕರಣ �ೕ�ದ ನಂತರ ತಮA ದೂರನುB 'ಾನೂನು !ೕತ= ಕ�ಮ'ೆC ಪ!ಗEಸ�ಾಗುವ�%ೆಂದು F(�ರು�ೆ4 ಅ01ಯವ#ೆ�ೆ �ಮA ಅ��ಯನುB �ಾ�ಾC0ಕGಾH;�ೇ <ಾಡ%ೇ ಇ!�'ೊಂ�ರು�ೆ4 .”

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶53

After the closure of the aforesaid case, the complainant registers the impugned complaint against the petitioners on 21-06-2020. It is not in dispute that the 1^st petitioner is the son of Smt. Geethamma, who executed a gift deed in favour of the 1^st petitioner and on the strength of the said gift deed, the 1^st petitioner is alleged to be in possession of the property.

¶54

The 2^nd respondent/complainant admittedly does not possess any document of sale but holds an agreement on the basis of which, the complainant claims that she was put in possession of the property pursuant to the said agreement of sale executed in favour of her father-in-law on 13-05-2002. Therefore, the complainant herself is not the one who is the agreement holder but her father-in-law and the said agreement was allegedly executed on 13-05-2002, 18 years prior to registration of impugned complaint. Contending that the sale deed has not been executed by Smt. Geethamma despite the agreement of sale dated 13-05-2002, the complainant herself has knocked the doors of civil Court by filing a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.222 of 2019, which is pending adjudication even as on date.

¶55

¶56

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶57

Since possession of the land at the hands of the complainant is itself in doubt in view of the complainant herself filing a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, which is of 18 years vintage, the allegations under Section 447 or 427 of the IPC, cannot be seen to be made against the petitioners since Section 447 of the IPC requires the victim to be in possession and the accused trespassing into the property belonging to the victim and generating destruction of the property. Section 427 of the IPC also would follow the same reasoning as it is an allegation for creation of mischief of the property belonging to the victim. If possession of the property is itself in doubt which has to be resolved before the civil Court where the proceedings are pending, none of the allegations made against the petitioners would hold water.

¶58

In the light of what is observed hereinabove, the matter being purely civil in nature, permitting further proceedings to continue notwithstanding police having filed charge sheet in the matter, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶59

¶60

CRL.P No. 2842 of 2021

¶61

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶64

ii. The complaint dated 21.06.2020, FIR in Crime No.140/2020, charge sheet filed in C.C.No.663/2020 and the order dated 28.10.2020 in C.C.No.663/2020 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Arkalgud, stand quashed.

¶65

iii. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order is only for the consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence any other proceedings pending between the parties before any judicial fora .

¶66

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 also stands disposed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

R Prashantha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Prashantha 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

Kum. Nayana Kumar H P Vs the Secretary, Social Welfare Department

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M Latha Vs the State of Karnataka

Subramanya S Vs State of Karnataka

Palaksha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwath Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka