Allowed

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022CRL.P/541/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka criminal bench allowed criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and private complaint alleging trespass. Court held dispute was purely civil as surrender of possession was confirmed finalized and giving criminal colour was abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; FIR in Cr.No.284/2018 registered by Ashok Nagar police station is quashed.

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.541 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MR KAMLESH HAKUMATRAI THAKUR S/O LATE HAKUMATRAI DEOOMAL THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶9

MRS MADHU KAMLESH THAKUR W/O MR KAMLESH HAKUMATRAI THAKUR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT NO 51/53, 2ND FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 AND BOTH RESIDING AT NO 7-B, HARBOUR HEIGHTS A-BUILDING, N A SAWANT ROAD, COLABA MUMBAI - 400005

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.B.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.SURAJ.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND :

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE S P P HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶16

MR VENKATESH BABU S/O MR BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S VIGNESHWARA ENTERPRISES, OFFICE NO 24, PUSHPANJALI, ACHAIAH CHETTY LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, R M V EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE - 560080

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.ROHITH.B.J., HCGP FOR R1; SMT.JYOTHI.S.K.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEARING PCR NO.54453/2018 (ANNEXURE A) FILED ON 22.06.2018 BY THE II RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2) PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE XLIII A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BANGALORE (ORDER SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-B), ALLEGING OFFENCES P/U/S 341,347,352,380,506 AND 120B OF IPC AND FIR DATED 31.07.2018 IN CRIME NO.284/2018 (ANNEXURE-C) REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

A private complaint was filed by respondent No.2 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that he was lessee of the subject property of which the petitionersaccused are the owners, and on 02.05.2018, when he and few workers were cleaning the subject premises, the petitioners-accused tried to trespass into the subject premises by holding axe and machete and also threatened and assaulted him by using axe and machete. It was further alleged that since the police did not take any steps against the accused persons, respondent No.2 had filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.3826/2018, 3836/2018 and 3844/2018 and in the said suits, the petitioners-accused were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of respondent No.2 over the subject premises. It is further alleged that during the

¶24

¶25

subsistence of the order of temporary injunction granted in favor of the petitioners-accused on 02.06.2018, the accused persons by violating the orders passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court entered into the subject premises and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject premises. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and the police have registered FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 347, 352, 380, 506,120B of IPC against the petitionersaccused. Taking exception, this petition is filed.

¶26

Sri.B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which is given a criminal colour so as to usurp the valuable immovable property belonging to the petitioners-accused. He further submits that the ex-

¶27

¶28

parte order of temporary injunction granted against the petitioners-accused was vacated by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court on the ground that respondent No.2 had surrendered the possession of the subject premises before filing of the suits.

¶29

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners-accused have criminally trespassed into the subject premises during operation of the interim order of temporary injunction, thereby the petitioners-accused have committed the aforesaid offences and the police have rightly registered FIR for the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners-accused and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State would

¶31

¶32

reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

It is undisputed that ex-parte interim order of temporary injunction was granted against the petitioners-accused as on the date of filing of the private complaint. However, on appearance and after hearing the petitioners-accused, the Trial Court vacated ex-parte interim order of temporary injunction, on the ground that respondent No.2 has surrendered the possession of the subject premises before filing of the suits and the said order was confirmed by this Court in MFA Nos.351/2019 and connected appeals. The categorical findings recorded by this Court that the respondent No.2 has surrendered the possession of the subject premises before filing of the suits has attained finality and the dispute between the parties is civil in nature but has given a criminal colour so as to usurp the valuable

¶34

¶35

rights of the petitioners-accused over the subject premises.

¶36

Respondent No.2 had also filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the surrender letter executed by respondent No.2 was forged and fabricated document and the same was questioned by the petitioners-accused before this Court in Crl.P.No.8234/2019. This Court by order dated 07.01.2022 in Crl.P.No.8234/2019 held that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and an attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute which has attained finality.

¶37

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of

¶38

the view that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the complaint is filed so as to falsely implicate the petitioners-accused to wreak

¶39

¶40

vengeance and it would be abuse of process of law, if the investigation is allowed to be continued against the petitioners-accused and same requires

¶41

interference. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. The FIR in Cr.No.0284/2018 registered by

¶45

the Ashoknagar police station on the file of XLIII Addl.CMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

RKA

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur 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 Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharmappa N N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vijayalaxmi Vs Miss Sandhya Kiran

Smt. Maheshwari Dhongadi Vs Sri. Narayankumar Raibagi

Sri Rahul Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka