Allowed

Sri D Yathiraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/4348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR alleging theft and criminal trespass. The High Court held the dispute was purely civil regarding property possession pending before a civil court. The FIR was struck down as an abuse of process of law filed with unconstitutional intent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No. 151/2017 registered by Halsur Gate Police Station is hereby quashed.

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4348/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI D. YATHIRAJU S/O SRI DASAPPA K AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.57/4 MAKKALA BASAVANNA GUDI BEEDHI NAGARTHPET, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶9

SRI J. HANUMAN MURTHY S/O SRI V. JAYAPAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.46 SUNKALPET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET BENGALURU-560 002.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HALSUR GATE POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

SRI DEVARAJU V S/O M.K. VENKATESHAPPA

¶15

¶16

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.60, I FLOOR KRSS BUILDING, SUNKALPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 002.

¶17

SRI KRISHNA UNNI S/O P.K. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.73, 3RD CROSS CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 002.

¶18

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS AGED ABIYT 40 YEARS OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE HALSOOR GATE POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI N. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3; R-4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.151/2017 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 380, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The FIR was lodged by the second respondent alleging that when he had gone to his native village, the petitioners-accused criminally trespassed into the subject property and committed the theft of cash, gold jewellaries and other documents. The Police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 380, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersaccused submits that petitioners are the owners of the said property and as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners-accused, the second respondent as an afterthought so as to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent lodged the FIR against the petitioners-accused and the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture.

¶27

On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the allegations made in the FIR clearly

¶28

¶29

discloses the commission of the cognizable offences and the Police has rightly registered the FIR and at this stage, the registration of the FIR cannot be interfered with and the said allegations are required to be investigated by the Police and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶31

Perusal of the sale deed indicates that the subject property is purchased by the petitioners-accused by the registered sale deed dated 20.12.2016 and there is dispute between the petitioners-accused and one Sudhir with regard to the possession of the subject property and the same is pending consideration before the Civil Court in a suit for possession filed by the petitioners-accused against the said person.

¶32

The petitioners-accused also lodged FIR against the second respondent herein, Krishna Unni and one Sudhir for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 323 and Section 34 of IPC. The impugned FIR was lodged subsequent to the

¶33

¶34

registration of the FIR in Crime No.131/2017 against the second respondent which clearly implies that, the FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners-accused with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the petitionersaccused and with revengeful intent. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture and if the investigation is allowed to be continued against the petitioners-accused, it will be an abuse of process of law.

¶35

7. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶36

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶37

(ii) Impugned FIR in Crime No. 151/2017 registered by

¶38

the Halsur Gate Police Station is hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

HR

Sri D Yathiraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Yathiraju 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

Sri K.A. Lingaraju Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

A K Ramaprakash Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri E Amarnath Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Mohammed Nisham @ Nisham Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka