Allowed

Sathish M.K. v. State by Kunigal Ps

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023CRL.P/4734/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought to quash the charge sheet registered against petitioners for criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC with Section 34. The High Court held that the trial court blindly took cognizance without applying its mind as no element of criminal intent was shown in the facts.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution launched against the petitioners in C.C.No.36/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kun

Sathish M.K. Vs State by Kunigal Ps — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4734 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SATHISH M.K., S/O K.T. KANTHARAJ SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RAJKUMAR NAGAR, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

SWAROOP SATHYAM K.S. S/O LATE K.S.SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT SWAPNA JEWELERS, DODDAPET, KUNIGAL-572130.

¶10

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KAILASARAM S/O LADHURAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT RAJALAKSHMI BANKERS, DODDAPET, KUNIGAL-572130.

¶12

SHIVAKUMARA S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT GALAXI STUDIO, KRS AGRHARA, DODDAPET, KUNIGAL-572130.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. B.K.NARENDRA BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY KUNIGAL P.S., KUNIGAL-572130.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶18

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

N. KIRANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ATTENDER, WORKING AT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL-572130.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 IN C.C.NO.36/2020 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them by respondent No.1 in C.C.No.36/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court').

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶27

Respondent No.1 registered Crime No.254/2019 against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC on the information provided by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 alleged that he was employed as an attender at the Senior Civil Court, Kunigal. He claimed that between 01.10.2019 and 10.10.2019, he was employed in the night shift. He alleged that on 05.10.2019 at about 5.30 p.m., when he and his two colleagues were on duty, they found that four strangers were recording a video of the Court building and its surroundings. He brought this to the notice of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Civil Judge, who instructed him to lodge a complaint before the police. He therefore, lodged a complaint on 05.10.2019 at 7.00 p.m. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.254/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC and took up investigation and filed a charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence.

¶28

The Trial Court perused the records and held that there was sufficient ground and prima-facie case to proceed against the petitioners/accused for the offence punishable

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶31

under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process to the petitioners.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this petition.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the property adjacent to the Court complex, while petitioner No.4 is a photographer. He contended that there was a civil dispute regarding shops and houses lying on the western side of the Court compound. He contended that the petitioners have not committed any acts constituting an offence under Section 447 of IPC. He contended that the Court premises does not belong to anyone and mere entering into the Court premises does not amount to a criminal trespass unless such entry is with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or remains on such property with an intention to commit the above. He submits that a reading of the complaint and charge-sheet does not show that there were elements of any intent to commit an offence. He submits that the Trial Court also did not apply its

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶35

mind but on the contrary blindly took cognizance. He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself stated in the complaint that the complaint was lodged on the advice of the Senior Civil Judge, Kunigal. Therefore, he submits that cognizance could not have been taken by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal.

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioners had entered the Court premises beyond the working hours of the Court and were trying to videograph the Court building and its surroundings and therefore, they had a criminal intent to commit an offence. She therefore, submits that the chargesheet and the consequent order taking cognizance are all just and proper.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶38

learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶39

A perusal of the information provided by respondent

¶40

No.2 to the respondent No.1 showed that it was done on the

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶42

instructions of the Senior Civil Judge, Kunigal. A perusal of the entire complaint and the charge-sheet material does not show any element of an offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC. An offence under Section 447 of IPC is said to be committed when a person enters into the property in the possession of another with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or remains on such property with an intention to commit the above. However, in the instant case there is no element of any intent to commit an offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy any person. The Trial Court therefore, did not evidently apply its mind before taking cognizance but blindly took cognizance and issued process. This is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law.

¶43

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed . The prosecution launched against the petitioners by respondent No.1 in C.C.No.36/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal is quashed.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:44963 CRL.P No. 4734 of 2021

¶46

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if

¶47

any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Sathish M.K. v. State by Kunigal Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish M.K. v. State by Kunigal Ps

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 a S Ashok Kumar Vs Sri Venkatachalapathy Shetty

Sri C Honnaiah Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs Ms B R Sreeranjini

Sri. Puneetha @ Puttaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Kalikamba Vinayaka Temple Vs Sri.Harischandra Acharya

J Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka