Allowed

Sri Munikrishnappa M K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2023CRL.P/8136/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered for offences under IPC Sections 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 427, and 149. The court held that the allegations were frivolous and baseless as the Civil Court had already declared the petitioners as absolute owners of the land with a perpetual injunction against the complainant. Quashing the pr

What did the court decide?

The FIR registered by the 1st Respondent in Crime No.0322/2017 against the petitioners under Sections 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 427 and 149 of IPC is quashed.

Sri Munikrishnappa M K Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8136 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA M K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.99 KSFC LAYOUT, OIL MILL ROAD LINGARAJAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 084

¶9

SRI H C JAYARAM S/O LATE CHIKKA PULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶10

RESIDING AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 043

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION HOSKOTE CIRCLE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

SRI MUNEGOWD V S/O LATE D.VENKATASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶17

RESIDENT OF ADUR VILLAGE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶20

BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU -560 049

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.B.RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 )

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.322/2017 OF AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS P/U/S 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 427 AND 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF ACJM, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned criminal petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.0322/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 427 and 149 of IPC.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶28

Respondent No.2 - complainant has lodged a

¶29

complaint against the petitioners herein alleging that the petitioners have illegally trespassed on 08.10.2017 at about 8.00 a.m. along with 6 to 7 persons and entered the land bearing Sy. No.112 and have damaged the fence. Respondent No.2 has further alleged that petitioners abused respondent No.2 - complainant and also threatened with dire consequences. Respondent No.2 - complainant claimed that there is a civil litigation pending before the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.1421/2007. On these set of allegations, the complaint is lodged.

¶30

The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the registration of the crime have approached this Court by contending that respondent No.2 has lodged a frivolous complaint, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. The petitioners claimed that they were compelled to file a suit against respondent No.2 - complainant, who was arrayed as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1421/2007. Respondent No.2 has contested the proceedings. The Civil

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶32

Court having examined the rival contentions decreed the suit thereby declaring petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 as the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.74, which is renumbered as Sy. No.112 measuring 2 acres and the respondent No.2 was restrained from interfering with accused No.1's peaceful possession by way of perpetual injunction. The judgment is rendered by the Civil Court on 04.09.2017. Respondent No.2 - complainant having suffered a judgment and decree, on the contrary, is trying to interfere with the 1^st petitioner's peaceful possession and he was compelled to lodged a complaint on 08.10.2017, which is placed on record vide Annexure-D. This Court would find that the jurisdictional police station has not taken cognizance on the complaint lodged by accused No.1. On the contrary, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 - complainant is entertained and crime is registered.

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶35

The materials on record, prima-facie , indicate

¶36

that respondent No.2 - complainant has lodged a frivolous complaint, which is registered on 09.10.2017. He claimed that the civil suit in O.S.No.1421/2017 is pending and accused No.1 is trying to trespass in the land owned by him i.e., Sy. No.112. These allegations are found to be totally baseless and frivolous. The Civil Court has already declared that accused No.1 is the absolute owner and in possession of the land in question vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2017. There is a perpetual injunction granted against respondent No.2 - complainant and is restrained not to interfere with accused No.1's peaceful possession. If these significant details are taken into consideration, then I am of the view that even if the allegations alleged in the complaint are accepted in entirety, this Court is of the view that no case is made out against the petitioners.

¶37

Prima-facie , no offence is made out against

¶38

the petitioners. The offence relating to criminal trespass

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶40

and thereafter, a narration in the complaint that there was a scuffle is found to be totally absurd. If Civil Court has held that accused No.1 is owner and in possession, accused No.1 cannot be tried for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC. If this significant detail is taken into account, then it is respondent No.2, who is found to be guilty of entering into the land, wherein Civil Court has declared petitioner No.1 as absolute owner and in possession.

¶41

In the light of all these significant details, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence. The allegations are found to be totally frivolous and baseless and they are found to be incapable of providing sufficient facts to constitute any offence. Therefore, if petitioners are compelled to face trial, then the same would amount to abuse of process of law and consequently may lead to mis-carriage of If petitioner No.1 is declared as owner and in possession by the competent Civil Court, respondent No.2 cannot take

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:19802 CRL.P No. 8136 of 2017

¶44

a recourse to the criminal trial only to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR registered by respondent No.1 in Crime No.0322/2017 against the petitioners is liable to quashed.

¶45

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to

¶46

pass the following;

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶49

The FIR registered by 1^st respondent - Avalahalli Police Station in Crime No.0322/2017 against the petitioners under Sections 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 427 and 149 of IPC pending on the file of the ACJM, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

JUDGE

Sd/-

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri Munikrishnappa M K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Munikrishnappa M K 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. Yaladalu Manoj Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka by Madikeri Town Police Station

Sri S B Vijayananda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmibai Chavan Vs Sri Gautam Chavan

Sri. Kiran Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Raghavendra Setty Vs State of Karnataka at the Instance of

Naveen Kumar Vs Sri. Mohammed Rafi