Allowed

Sri B S Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023CRL.P/4998/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR alleging attempt to affix false locks and damage compound wall, arising from a pending civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Court held the case to be a dispute over civil property rights where possession is admitted.

What did the court decide?

The registration of FIR in Crime No.77/2019 and the consequent investigation against petitioners were quashed.

Sri B S Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41375 CRL.P No. 4998 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4998 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. B.S. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT BYATHAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 008

¶8

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O B.S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT BYATHAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 008

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. TEJAS N ., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE, MYSORE-570014 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -01.

¶14

RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAKANYA VILLAGE, DODDAKANYA POST, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE-571311

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41375 CRL.P No. 4998 of 2019

¶18

SRI. SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIDYARANYAPURAM P.S, MYSORE WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II J.M.F.C., COURT, MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 447, 506 OF IPC, AND THE CONSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners have challenged the registration of First Information Report in Crime No.77/2019 by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506 of IPC, which is pending consideration before the JMFC - II Court, Mysuru.

¶23

The substance of the allegations made by respondent No.2 is that he and his wife were the owners of two sites bearing Nos.61 and 62 situate at Nachanahalli Village, Srirampura Grama Panchayath, Mysuru. He alleged that his relatives/petitioners herein had created false documents and got their names entered in the khatha. Soon thereafter, on coming to know of the same, the respondent No.2 and his wife

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41375 CRL.P No. 4998 of 2019

¶25

filed a suit in O.S.No.433/2016 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru for declaration of their right, title and interest and also for recovery of the possession of the suit property from the petitioners herein and that the said suit was pending consideration. He alleged that taking advantage of the Court vacation, the petitioners had demolished the compound wall. Similarly, the petitioners had created false documents in respect of site Nos.63 and 64 in respect of which, a complaint was registered with respondent No.1. He therefore, prayed that suitable action be initiated against the petitioners. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.77/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506 of IPC and took up investigation.

¶26

The petitioners being aggrieved by the registration of First Information Report in Crime No.77/2019 and the consequent steps to investigate the offence, have filed this petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶28

that the suit in O.S.No.433/2016 was not only filed for declaration of title but also for recovery of possession of the

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41375 CRL.P No. 4998 of 2019

¶30

property. He therefore, submits that respondent No.2 also admitted categorically that it is the petitioners, who are in possession. Therefore, he contended that the respondent No.2 cannot allege that the petitioners had demolished the compound wall enclosing the site Nos.61 and 62. At any rate, he submits that respondent No.2 has attempted to give a criminal flavour to a civil dispute and unnecessarily implicated the petitioners in an investigation by respondent No.1.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that though the civil suit is pending consideration, that does not empower the petitioners to take law in their hands to demolish the compound wall, which was put up by respondent No.2. He therefore, contends that the petitioners are bound to be involved in an investigation by respondent No.1.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 and his

¶34

wife have filed a suit in O.S.No.433/2016 for declaration of

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41375 CRL.P No. 4998 of 2019

¶36

their title to the site bearing Nos.61 and 62 situate at Nachanahalli village, Sriramapura Grama Panchayat, Mahadevapura Layout, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The suit is also for recovery of possession of the said two sites. Therefore, it is more than evident that the petitioners are in possession even as per the case made out by respondent No.2 and his wife. If that be so, respondent No.2 cannot accuse the petitioners of concocting or fabricating the documents, as the same is yet to be decided by the Civil Court in O.S.No.433/2016. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners is indeed an abuse of process of law and is also mischievous in nature. Consequently, the same deserves to be set at naught.

¶37

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed . The registration of First Information Report in Crime No.77/2019 and the consequent investigation against the petitioners by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506 of IPC, which is pending consideration before the JMFC - II Court, Mysuru, is quashed.

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:41375 CRL.P No. 4998 of 2019

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri B S Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B S Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka by

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

Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka by

Asha Devi Vs the State by Tilak Nagar P.S

S G Sadananda Gowda Vs Honnadasegowda

Raju M Talluru Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Savithramma Vs Sri Eshwarappa