Allowed

Arun a Advani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023WP/7338/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR registered against petitioners for offences under IPC and the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Court held that the complaint arose from a civil land dispute, involved false allegations, and constituted an abuse of the process of law to harass genuine landowners.

What did the court decide?

The investigation in Crime No.31/2019 against the petitioners for offences under IPC and the Prevention of Atrocities Act is quashed.

Arun a Advani Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7338 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARUN A ADVANI AGED 46 YEARS, S/O ATU ADVANI, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, VASWANI GROUP, NO.30, VASWANI VICTORIA, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE-560047.

¶9

LAVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE B.T. KRISHNA MURTHY, VICE PRESEDENT, VASWANI GROUP, NO.30, VASWANI VICTORIA, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE 560047.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MANASA M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VARTHUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.

¶15

MUNIYAPPA MAJOR S/O LATE CHINNIPIGA, NO.12, 7^TH CROSS, NETHAJI LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI POST,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶17

R/O MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE MANADHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶20

SRI. V. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT))

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 06.02.2019 AT ANNEXURE-L IN CRIME NO.0031/2019 AGAINST THE PETITONERS UNDER SECTIONS 427, 447, 468, 471, 504 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, BEFORE VARTHUR POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU RURAL, BANGALORE CITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have challenged the investigation initiated against them by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.31/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 468, 471 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶26

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act of 1989’) pending consideration before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶27

The respondent No.2 submitted information before the respondent No.1 on 06.02.2019, that his father Sri Chinnappiga/Sri Chinipiga was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.63/2 of Thubarahalli village measuring 03 acres 03 guntas. He claimed that in the year 1961, in order to meet the marriage expenses of his brother, Sri Munithanappa though Sri Chinnappiga attained majority, yet without involving him, his father had disposed off the aforesaid land to Sri Annaiah Reddy. Later, Smt.Savitha Nagpal and Smt.Kavitha Malani became the owners of the property, and entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s.Vasvani developers. He alleged that in the year 2006, he filed the suit in respect of the aforesaid land, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, respondent No.2 contended that his sister-in-

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶29

law, Smt. Ammayamma had already filed a suit in O.S. No.639/2014 which was pending consideration. He claimed

¶30

that during the pendency of O.S. No.639/2014, M/s.Vasvani Developers had undertaken construction of a huge complex on the land in question. He claimed that the Government of India had issued a notification which was published in the Gazette on 18.01.2016 amending the provisions of the Act of 1989 by which any property belonging to a scheduled caste, if obtained without his notice and knowledge, the same had to be restored back to him. The respondent No.2 further claimed that he questioned the petitioners and others to restore the land but was abused by taking his caste. He alleged that petitioners and others had created false documents and indulged in forgery to create documents and deprive him of the land in question. He, therefore, prayed that suitable action be initiated against the petitioners and others.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶33

Based on such an information, the respondent

¶34

No.1 registered a case in Crime No.31/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 468, 471, 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989. The petitioners being accused Nos.3 and 4 have therefore, questioned the investigation against them in the aforesaid case.

¶35

Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the property originally belonged to one Sri Annaiah Reddy, who sold it to one Sri Ramaiah in terms of a sale deed dated 15.05.1964. Sri Ramaiah in turn sold it to the father of the complainant – Sri Chinipiga under sale deed dated 22.07.1965. The father of the complainant sold 3 different portions of the said land, namely, 01 acre, 01 acre and 01 acre 03 guntas each in favour of Smt. Eramma, Sri Chikkanaga Reddy and Sri Chikkanaga Reddy in terms of three different sale deeds dated 22.07.1965, 26.04.1966 and 17.10.1968 respectively. After demise of Sri Chikkanaga Reddy, his

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶37

widow Smt. Munirathnamma succeeded to his property. The property, namely, 02 acres 03 guntas of land in Sy. No.63/2 was sold by Smt. Munirathnamma in favour of Sri Yeshwanth Shenoy under a sale deed dated 17.04.1995. Smt. Eramma sold 01 acre to Sri Yeshwanth Shenoy in terms of the sale deed dated 17.04.1995. Thus, Sri Yeshwanth Shenoy became the owner of the entire extent of 03 acres 03 guntas of the land in Sy. No.63/2 and he sold the same to Smt. Savita Nagpal under a sale deed dated 24.09.2005. Smt. Savita Nagpal executed a Gift Deed dated 10.02.2010 in favour of her elder sister - Smt. Kavita Malani in respect of 02 acres out of the said land and sold the remaining 01 acre 03 guntas to M/s.V.S Realtors Private Limited under a sale deed dated 11.02.2010. M/s.Tranquil Realty Private Limited, Bangalore, has entered into a joint development agreement with Smt. Kavita Malani and M/s. V.S Realtors Private Limited on 11.02.2010. He submitted that the developer has undertaken development of the property in question and completed the construction. When things

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶39

stood thus, the suit in O.S. No.639/2014 was filed by Smt. Ammayamma and her daughter, Smt. Shilpa, before XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the property. An application (I.A No.1) for interim injunction filed by Smt. Ammayamma and Smt. Shilpa restraining the owners and purchasers of the property from putting up any construction was rejected by the Trial Court while application - I.A. No.3 filed by the defendant No.9 in the said suit for vacating the order of status quo granted was allowed in terms of the order dated 09.07.2015 which was challenged before this Court in MFA No.6195/2015 which too was dismissed in terms of the order dated 07.10.2015. Following this, Smt.Ammayamma also lodged a complaint in Crime No.162/2015 before the jurisdictional Police alleging the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. He submits that this Court in Criminal Petition No.3796/2015 quashed the said criminal proceedings initiated against the

¶40

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶41

petitioners herein in terms of the order dated 16.08.2018.

¶42

He also invited the attention of the Court to several revenue proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 herein before the Assistant Commissioner, which was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 24.04.2015. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 has abused the process of law and the Court in filing a false case and the respondent No.1 without ascertaining the genuinity of the claim of the respondent No.2 had drawn up an F.I.R. He, therefore, prays that the impugned investigation against the petitioners be quashed.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions.

¶44

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand, submitted that the allegations made in the information furnished by the respondent No.2 did make out offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 468 471 and 504 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶47

of the Act of 1989. He, therefore, prayed that an investigation would reveal whether the petitioners had committed any crime.

¶48

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶49

learned senior counsel for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶50

A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 clearly discloses that the respondent No.2 and his family had lost the land bearing Sy. No.63/2 of Thubarahalli village, Varthur hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring 03 acres 03 guntas way back in the year 1965 itself. The joint development agreement between Smt.Kavita S. Malani, the owner of the land and M/s. V.S Realtors Private Limited and M/s. Tranquil Realty Private Limited was entered on 11.02.2010. The information furnished by respondent No.2 itself discloses that the developer had undertaken construction of a huge building on the property bearing Sy. No.63/2 of Thubarahalli village. Though it is

¶51

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶52

stated by the respondent No.2 that the incident took place on 02.01.2019, a belated information was furnished to the respondent No.2 on 06.02.2019 at 4 p.m. and there was no explanation for the delay in lodging a belated complaint. Be that as it may, respondent No.2 has alleged that the developer had created and concocted documents

¶53

to take over the land in question. However, the information provided by respondent No.2 is silent about how the documents were concocted while the respondent No.2 did admit that the property was conveyed by his father during his life time to various persons. This apart, Smt. Ammayamma, the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 had also filed a similar case in Crime No.162/2015 against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 which was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3796/2015. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent No.2 and his family members are out to create a litigation and harass the genuine land owners of the property by

¶54

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶55

filing false and frivolous complaints before the respondent No.1. The records enclosed along with the petition do demonstrate that the respondent No.2 has attempted to give a criminal cloak to an otherwise civil dispute and has thus attempted to abuse the process of law and the Court. In that view of the matter, the investigation of the alleged offences against the petitioners cannot continue lest it would be a handle in the hands of the respondent No.2 to harass the petitioners.

¶56

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The case lodged by the respondent No.1 against petitioners in Crime No.31/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 468, 471, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending consideration before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is quashed.

¶57

12 -

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:33579 WP No. 7338 of 2019

¶59

In view of disposal of this petition, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration

¶60

and the same stand disposed off.

¶61

Any observation made in the above paras is only for the purpose of considering this petition and shall not affect any other proceedings before any other Court, which may decide such proceedings based on the evidence adduced before it.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

SMA

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Arun a Advani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun a Advani 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

G Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R Nagarani Vs the Principal Secretary

Lotus Three Developments Limited Vs Union of India

V. D. Chandrashekar Vs U. R. Meenakshi

Sri K v Adithya Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Smt K Savitha Vs the State of Karnataka