Allowed

Smt Nekkunte Ramalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2023CRL.P/3899/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused in a private complaint alleging SC/ST atrocities and civil trespass. The Court found the case arose from a civil dispute over land restitution, supported by a final civil decree, and was filed with ulterior motive after an inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in Crime No.49/2019 pending before the Sessions Judge quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioners.

Smt Nekkunte Ramalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3899 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NEKKUNTE RAMALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI. VENKATARAO,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. BALI SURYA PRABHAVATHI D/O SRI. VENKATARAO,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA RAO S/O SRI. RATTAIAH,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. SRINIVAS S/O SRI. VENKATARAO,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. RAJU S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO,

¶18

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KABBALA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-544 577.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. MAHESH B.J., ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BASVAPATNA POLICE STATION, CHANNAGIRI CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-544 577, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶26

SRI. RANGAPPA BHOVI S/O LATE SANNARANGAPPA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3-30-1, NEKKILA ASHOKANAGAR POST, MANGALORE-575 006.

¶27

SRI. RAJAPPA S/O LATE SRI. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-544 577.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I, A/W SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI RANGAPPA BHOVI, ADV. FOR R-2 (PARTY IN PERSON); R-3 SERVED)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2019 PASSED IN CRIME NO.49/2019 ARISED OUT OF PCR NO.5/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.49/2019 OF BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION, CHANNAGIRI CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, CONSEQUENT UPON ORDER OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶33

SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT IN P.C.R.NO.5/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(2)(VII), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(p),4, 2(1)(a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SECTIONS 209,193,198,210,206,427,207,182,253,421,471,447,323,465, 319,384,341,120-B,201,34,468,199, 441,417 AND 426 OF IPC.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC was filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that, the petitioner No.1 and Meka Narasimhamurthy have created the sale deed and in pursuance of the same, their names were effected in the revenue records and further in the year 1985, the accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the schedule property and started illegally cultivating the land, and when the 3rd respondent tried to prevent the said illegal act, the petitioners assaulted the accused No.3 and threatened him with dire consequences and abused him in filthy language by referring his caste.

¶37

The learned Sessions Judge referred the complaint to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police registered the FIR for the offences under Sections 3(2)(vii),

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶40

3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(1), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(p) and 4 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 209, 193, 198, 210, 206 of IPC and Sections 2(1)(a) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 427, 207, 182, 253, 421, 471, 447, 323, 465, 319, 384, 341, 120B, 201, 34, 468, 199, 441, 417, 426 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners - accused are before this Court.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable, and the complaint was filed without complying with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.PC. Hence, the complaint filed without complying with the said provisions is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (19.03.2015 - SC) : (2015)6 SCC 287. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint arise out of civil dispute between the parties which is evident from the fact that the application filed by the 3rd respondent for resumption and restoration of the subject land was dismissed by the competent Authority and the same has attained finality before the Hon'ble

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶44

Supreme Court. He further submits that the jurisdictional Civil Judge in OS No.20/2013 decreed the suit on 2.7.2018 restraining the respondents No.2 and 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property. Hence, he submits that the complaint was lodged with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with revengeful event. He further submits that the alleged incident has taken place in the year 1977 and 2007 respectively and the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of more than eleven years without offering plausible explanation, which clearly implies that the complaint was filed with malice and without plausible cause.

¶45

The 2nd respondent - party-in-person has filed the written statement reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences and veracity of the allegation requires to be investigated, and at this stage, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶48

Sri Kiran S Javali, the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent - State submits that after following due procedure of law, the FIR has been registered and the police may be permitted to investigate the allegations made in the complaint which disclose the commission of cognizable offences and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

I have examined the submissions of the learned

¶50

counsel appearing for the parties.

¶51

The offences alleged against the petitioners - accused are cognizable, and the complaint was filed without complying with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.PC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) has held that the complaint filed without complying with the said provisions is not maintainable.

¶52

It is undisputed that the respondent No.3 had filed an application for resumption and restoration of subject land on the ground that the land was conveyed in violation of Section 4(2) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶55

said application, which was filed an inordinate delay of twenty one year, was dismissed by the competent Authority and has attained finality. The jurisdictional Civil Court has also passed a decree restraining the respondents No.2 and 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject property. It is only thereafter the respondents No.2 and 3 having suffered an adverse order filed the private complaint after an inordinate delay without offering any plausible explanation alleging that they have been dispossessed from the subject property on the basis of the created documents.

¶56

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma -vs- State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 has held that any civil dispute between the parties would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe.

¶57

The claim of the respondents No.2 and 3 for restoration having been negated by the competent Authority and also by the jurisdictional Civil Judge in OS No.20/2013, the

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 3899 of 2019

¶60

complaint was filed by making frivolous allegations only to falsely implicate the petitioners and to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent.

¶61

In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of investigation against the petitioners - accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶64

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.49/2019

¶65

pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, insofar as the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 is hereby quashed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

BKM