Allowed

Sri H R Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023CRL.P/1626/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioners alleging offences under IPC Sections 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 380, 392, 448, 324 and 506B. The Court held the dispute was purely civil, noting the trial court had dismissed the respondent's suit and denied temporary injunction, rendering criminal investigation an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned FIR in Crime No.279/2016 registered at Siddapur Police Station is quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 4.

Sri H R Mallikarjuna Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1626/2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H.R. MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE H.B. REDDAPPA

¶9

SRI H.M. OM PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O SRI H.R. MALLIKARJUNA

¶10

SRI H.M. MANUP AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O SRI H.R. MALLIKARJUNA

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF THE PREMISES BEARING NO.328, 14TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 004.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

¶17

SRI H.R. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SRI H.B. RAJENDRA RESIDENT OF THE PREMISES BEARING NO.1573, 2ND CROSS NAGAPPA BLOCK, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURAM BANGALORE-560 021.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.279/2016 REGISTERED AT SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 427, 144, 143, 147, 148, 149, 380, 392, 448, 324, 506B OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The 2nd respondent lodged a FIR alleging that the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 along with 200 others by forming an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons trespassed into the subject property belonging to the 2nd respondent and damaged the movables belonging to the 2nd respondent and also assaulted and snatched the gold chain from the mother of the 2nd respondent when she was returning from

¶24

¶25

morning walk. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 380, 392, 448, 324, 506(B) of IPC. Taking exception to the same, the accused Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court.

¶26

Sri C V Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 submits that the FIR was lodged as an after thought only to overcome the order passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court vacating the order of temporary injunction operating against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the subject property. He further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which is evident from the suit in OS No.1319/2015 filed by the 2nd respondent against the accused Nos.2 to 4 for perpetual and mandatory injunction to put them in possession in respect of the subject property. He further submits that the suit for declaration filed by the 2nd respondent in respect of the subject property has also been dismissed.

¶27

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent - State submits that the

¶28

¶29

allegation made in the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of offence alleged against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 and veracity of the allegation cannot be gone into, at this stage and the same requires to be investigated and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶31

It is undisputed that the 2nd respondent had filed a suit in OS No.1319/2015 and an order of temporary injunction was operating against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4. The said order of temporary injunction was vacated by the Trial Court on 30.10.2016. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent lodged the FIR, which clearly implies that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to overcome the order passed by the Trial Court vacating the order of temporary injunction granted against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶32

The suit in OS No.1319/2015 has also been dismissed by the Trial Court by the judgment and decree dated

¶33

¶34

29.3.2022, which indicates that the 2nd respondent was not in possession of the subject property. The 2nd respondent had also filed P.Mis.No.2/2016 seeking for temporary injunction and the said petition was dismissed by the jurisdictional Court on 5.4.2022, which clearly implies that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the 2nd respondent was not in possession of the subject property, however, given criminal texture. Hence, the continuation of investigation against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 will be an abuse of process of law, since the possibilities of police filing the charge sheet is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.279/2016 registered

¶38

by the Siddapur Police Station, Bangalore, inosfar as it relates to petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

bkm

Sri H R Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H R Mallikarjuna 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 N H Raju Vs Thirthahalli Avishkar Souhardha

Uma M Vs State of Karnataka by

Wurht Electronics Services India Vs Delhi Control Devices (P) Limited

Sri. Suvalal Vs State of Karnataka

Vijaya Kumar @ Vijay Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajaya Marodia Vs Shivaramaiah K M