Allowed

Sri D Yathiraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/4350/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash an FIR alleging trespass and theft. The court held that the dispute arose from a civil property dispute pending before the Civil Court and amounted to a counter-blast, constituting an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 150/2017 registered by the Halasurgate Police Station is quashed.

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | 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.4350/2018

¶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 SUDHIR V S/O VENKATAPPA

¶15

¶16

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.60, 2ND 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 ABOUT 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 & 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.150/2017 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.

¶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 valuable household articles worth of Rs.7,85,000/-. 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 second respondent as an afterthought so as to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent 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

¶28

respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2and 3 submits that the allegations made in the FIR clearly discloses the commission of the cognizable offence and the Police has rightly registered the FIR and at this stage, the

¶29

¶30

registration of the FIR cannot be interfered with and the said allegations are required to be investigated by the Police and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶32

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶33

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 respondent No.2-Sudhir with regard to the possession of the said 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.

¶34

The petitioners-accused also lodged FIR against the second respondent herein, and the third respondent Mr. Krishna Unni for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 506, 448 and Section 34 of IPC. The impugned FIR was lodged subsequent to the registration of the FIR in Crime No.131/2017

¶35

¶36

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 petitioners-accused 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.

¶37

7. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶38

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

¶39

(ii) Impugned FIR in Crime No. 150/2017 registered by the Halasurgate Police Station is hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

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