Partly allowed

R. N. Jayanth v. the State of Karnataka by Doddaballapura Rural P.S.

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023WP/2296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a charge sheet filed for offences related to property damage could not be sustained as the investigation failed to adhere to a prior High Court order directing a survey of the disputed land to verify possession boundaries. The charge sheets were quashed and the case remitted for survey.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheets C.C.No.885/2016 and C.C.No.1099/2017 were quashed. Petitioners allowed in part, and the case remitted to the Investigating Officer to conduct a survey of the disputed land.

R. N. Jayanth Vs the State of Karnataka by… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2296 OF 2023

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1187 OF 2018

¶8

IN WP NO. 2296/2023 BETWEEN:

¶9

R. N. JAYANTH, S/O LATE R N NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO 15 VISHWANATH RAO ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR BENGALURU 560001.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT JYOTHI JAYANTH W/O R N JAYANTH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 15 VISHWANATH RAO ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560001.

¶12

SMT SMITHA D/O R N JAYANTH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO 15 VISHWANATH RAO ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560001.

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶14

MR ABHINANDAN

¶15

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O MR R N JAYANTH, R/AT NO 15 VISHWANATH RAO ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560001.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VANDANA P L.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL P.S., REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001.

¶20

SHRI R N RAJANNA S/O LATE PATAL NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, R/AT NO 36 B 12TH BLOCK, KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶23

SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A))

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASHING CHARGE SHEET C.C.NO.885/2016 ARAISING OUT OF CRIME NO.158/2013 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 447,427, 506 AND 34 OF IPC ARRANGING THE PRESENT PETITIONERS AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 AND ETC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 1187/2018 BETWEEN:

¶27

R. N. JAYANTH S/O. LATE. R. N. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶28

SMT. JYOTHI JAYANATH W/O. R. N. JAYANTH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶29

SAMITHA D/O. R N JAYANTH, (SMITHA WORINGLY SHOWN AS SAMITHA)

¶30

ABHINANDAN

¶31

S/O. R N JAYANTH, R/AT 15, VISHWANATH RAO ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURLU 560001.

¶32

…PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. M S SHYAM SUNDAR .,ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU RURAL 571253. REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURLU 560001

¶36

R N RAJANNA

¶37

S/O. LATE. PATEL NANJAPPA, R/AT NO. 36-B. 12TH BLOCK, KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION, BENGLAURLU 560020

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A))

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1099/2017 (CRIME NO.156/2013 OF DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION), BENGALURU DISTRICT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 427,506,504,143,147,148,379,447 R/W 149 OF IPC.I.A.NO.1/2018 FOR STAY.

¶43

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

In WP.No.2296/2023

¶46

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No.885/2016 by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., which is pending trial before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur.

¶47

The respondent No.1 registered crime No.158/2013 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 427, 506, 447, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., based on information furnished by

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶49

respondent No.2 . on 08.05.2013. The respondent No.2 claimed that on 08.05.2013, the petitioners herein had demolished the farm house in his garden land and also vandalised some trees. He also alleged that the petitioners attempted to kill him and his son. Based on this, the respondent No.1 took up investigation and filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The trial Court took cognizance and registered C.C.No.885/2016 and issued process to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶50

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that a proceeding in a Civil Court was pending consideration between the parties in O.S.No.9/2004 and O.S.No.132/2003, which ultimately reached this Court in RFA.No.1636/2005 and RFA.No.1637/2005. He submitted that this Court after considering the appeals on merit, held that the petitioners are in possession of 1 acre of land in

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶52

Sy.No.186/2 while respondent No.2 is in possession of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.186/2 and therefore, granted injunction in favour of the petitioners as well as respondent No.2. He submits that an attempt made by respondent No.2 to review the order passed in RFA.No.1636/2005 and RFA.No.1637/2005 in

¶53

RP.No.156/2013 was rejected in terms of the order dated 25.09.2013 and a Special Leave Petition is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.2824-2826/2014 , where the Court has granted leave. He submits that unless the properties of the petitioners and respondent No.2 was demarcated by a survey as directed by this Court in RFA.No.1636/2005 and RFA.No.1637/2005, the

¶54

respondent No.2 cannot allege that the petitioners had vandalised the structure existing on his property.

¶55

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners had

¶56

deliberately suppressed material fact in-as-much-as, the petitioners had earlier filed CRL.P.No.700/2014 challenging

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶58

the registration of Crime No.158/2013 and this Court in terms of the order dated 30.07.2014 had reserved liberty to the petitioners to produce all relevant documents before the Investigating Officer and he was directed to complete the investigation. He submits that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have disclosed the filing of the earlier petition, when the present petition was filed challenging the charge sheet and the consequent proceedings. In this regard, he relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (DEAD) LRS Vs. Jagannath (DEAD) By LRS and others-AIR 1994

¶59

SC 853 . He further contended that the petitioners are not allowing the land to be surveyed but on the contrary have taken law to their hands by demolishing a structure existing on the property and also vandalising some trees existing on the property belonging to respondent No.2. He therefore, submits that this Court may not interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Trial Court.

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶61

The learned High Court Government Pleader on

¶62

the other hand submits that there are eye witnesses who, have spoken about the structure existing on the property of respondent No.2 being demolished by the petitioners and also some trees being damaged by the petitioners. He therefore, submits that the prosecution has gathered sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners.

¶63

I have considered the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶64

It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had filed O.S.No.9/2004 and O.S.No.132/2003 in respect of certain portion of land in Sy.No.186/2 at Rajaghatta village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk. It is also not in dispute that challenging the decree passed in O.S.No.9/2004 and O.S.No.132/2003, separate appeals were filed in RFA.No.1636/2005 and RFA.No.1637/2005 , before this

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶66

court. This court after considering the material on record passed a judgment dated 20.02.2013, holding that respondent No.2 is in possession of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.186/2, while the Petitioner No.1 is in possession of 1 acre. Consequently, the suit filed by respondent No.2 for injunction in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas excluding the land possessed by the petitioner No.1, was decreed. Likewise it also granted a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of 1 acre of land possessed by the petitioner No.1. This Court further directed that if respondent No.2 found that the petitioner No.1 is in possession of more than 1 acre, it is open for him to get the land surveyed and the boundaries fixed to the extent of 1 acre. The respondent No.2 tried to get this judgement reviewed by filing RP.No.156/2013 which was dismissed by this Court in terms of the order dated 25.09.2013. A Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is stated to be pending consideration.

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶68

A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that no attempt was made either by respondent No.2 or by the petitioner No.1 to get the land surveyed to identify the area which is in possession of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. The investigating Officer, who was bound to look into the judgment passed by this Court in RFA.No.1636/2005 and RFA.No.1637/2005 must have considered the necessity of getting the land surveyed to identify the property possessed by the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. That, not having been done, there is no justification for filing a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners is half baked attempt by respondent No.1 to prosecute them.

¶69

The Trial Court also did not consider these facts while taking cognisance of the offences. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed in-part. The impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.885/2016 by

¶70

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶71

respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to get a survey conducted to identify 1 acre, which is in possession of the petitioner No.1 and 1.10 acres which is in possession of respondent No.2. If, respondent No.1 is thereafter satisfied that the structure that was existing in the property of respondent No.2 was vandalised or damaged then he file a fresh charge sheet, in accordance with law.

¶72

IN CRL.P.NO. 1187/2018

¶73

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No.1099/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 504, 506, 379 read with 149 of I.P.C. which is pending consideration before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur.

¶74

The substance of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 on 08.05.2013 was that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.186/2 of Rajagatta, measuring 1 acre 27 guntas where a RCC

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶77

building in an area measuring 600 sq.ft. stood, which was serviced with electricity and a telephone connection was installed, apart from a LPG connection. He claimed that got a borewell sunk and raised fruit bearing trees. He claimed that this court in WP.No.14868/2013 had directed him and the petitioners herein to maintain Status-quo . He claimed that this Court in RP.No.156/2013 passed a judgment dated 26.04.2014 and had granted an order of Status-quo . He alleged that respondent No.1 had inspected the spot and drawn a mahazar, which indicated that he was in possession of the property. He claimed that on 07.05.2013, the petitioners committed illegal acts in respect of which, a complaint was lodged on 07.05.2013. He claimed that the petitioners had trespassed into his land and demolished the existing farm house and destroyed the standing plants and crops, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. He therefore, requested respondent No.1 to initiate suitable action against the petitioners.

¶78

It is relevant to note that the facts in this case as well as in WP.No.2296/2023 are same and therefore,

¶79

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:45817 WP No. 2296 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1187 of 2018

¶80

this petition also deserves to be disposed off on the same lines as in WP.No.2296/2023. Consequently, this petition is allowed in-part and the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.1099/2017 is quashed . Similarly, the charge sheet filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 447 427, 504, 506, 379 read with 149 of I.P.C is also quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent No.1, who is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and respondent No.2 in the light of the judgement of this court in RFA.No.1636/2005 and RFA.No.1637/2005. The respondent No.1 shall obtain necessary survey and fix the area of land which is in possession of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and thereafter, consider whether a charge sheet requires to be filed in the case.

¶81

In view of the disposal off the petition, any pending applications also stand disposed off.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

PHM

R. N. Jayanth v. the State of Karnataka by Doddaballapura Rural P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. N. Jayanth v. the State of Karnataka by Doddaballapura Rural P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner, Vs Gangamma

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan Vs Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan

Smt. Venkatamma Vs Sri Veeranna

Sri Satish K R Vs Anantharamu Dead by Lrs Smt v Gayathri

M/S. Mineral Enterprises Ltd., Vs the New Mangalore Port Trust

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd.