Dismissed

Mr Varghese Mathew v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2024CRL.P/1521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for alleged theft, mischief, and intimidation. The court held that the petitioner's actions, including breaking locks and ransacking premises, clearly attracted IPC provisions, making it an improper case for summary dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; the charge sheet and proceedings emanating therefrom were affirmed.

Mr Varghese Mathew Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1262 CRL.P No. 1521 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. VARGHESE MATHEW S/O P. G. MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, FLAT NO.3C2, PRESIDENT OF MALNAD REGENCY, FLAT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, 14^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGAR, MALLESH PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. J. HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BY BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, OLD MADRAS ROAD, RAHAT BAGH, NAGAWARA PALYA, BENNIGANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 093. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:1262 CRL.P No. 1521 of 2023

¶16

MR. SRIDHARA K MAJOR, FATHERS SHANKAR NARAYAN, R/A FLAT NO.101, D BLOCK, RENAISSANCE BRINDAVAN APARTMENT, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEING CR.NO.94/2020 DATED 12.08.2020 U/S.427, 448, 506 OF IPC AND ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFORM INCLUDING C.C.NO.54418/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 482

¶23

of Cr.P.C., for quashing the charge sheet in C.C. No.54418/2020 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.94/2020 registered by Byappanahalli police station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 427, 448, 506 of IPC.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1262 CRL.P No. 1521 of 2023

¶25

Heard The arguments of learned counsel for

¶26

petitioner, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered FIR. It is alleged that he has purchased two flats, one at ground floor and another at first floor in Malnad Regency Apartment on 02.12.1999 and one is occupied by him and another is let out to a tenant who is running the business in the name of MK Home Needs. On 08.07.2020, the petitioners also said to have issued legal notice to respondent, stating that without permission of Association, he is running department store. Immediately, on 9.8.2020 at about 7.30 PM, the petitioners and others said to have come to the building and forcefully removed the board of the shop and put the board as Malnad Regency. They also break opened the lock in the first floor and they also fixed another lock in the house and ransacked the premises. Thereby, they caused the mischief and also threatened the life of the complainant, the tenant. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered and police after

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1262 CRL.P No. 1521 of 2023

¶29

investigating the matter, charge sheet has been filed, which is under challenge.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged offences is not committed by the petitioner, there is no ingredients to attract any of the sections. He has not entered the premises. The petitioner is the President of Association of the Apartments. He has requested the tenants to remove the shops, which was run without permission. Therefore, prayed for quashing the charge sheet.

¶31

Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2, seriously objected the petition, that he has purchased the property and let out the premises to the tenant and the business was running smoothly. All of a sudden the petitioner was demanding that the rent should be payable to the Association, but not to the complainant and when the same was refused, they ransacked the building and the premises and also break opened the lock etc., Therefore, there is a prima facie case made out for taking cognizance and framing of charge. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1262 CRL.P No. 1521 of 2023

¶33

Learned HCGP also objected the petition.

¶34

Having heard the arguments and perused the record,

¶35

on perusal, it is not in dispute, the respondent No.2 was the owner and had purchased two flats, one at ground floor and another at first floor. The petitioner said to be president of the Apartment Association of Malnad Regency. It is not in dispute, the respondent No.2, said to be let out the premises to one of the tenant namely Pradeep, who is running some department store from last 18 years prior to the incident, by paying rent of Rs.6000/- to respondent No.2. But the petitioner claimed, that the rent should be payable to the association but not to the complainant. Therefore, a notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, for removing the department store. But instead of taking the to take its course in accordance with law, the petitioner went along with others and ransacked the premises by removing the board by putting the Malnad Regency board and also break opened the lock and put the separate lock. On perusal of the same for ransacking and causing mischief, which

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1262 CRL.P No. 1521 of 2023

¶37

attracts section 427 of IPC and threatening to do with the life attracts section 506 of IPC. The petitioner break opened the lock in the flat belonging to the respondent No.2 which attracts definition under section 442 of IPC, house trespass which is punishable under Section 447 of IPC. Such being the case, I am of the view, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. The petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶38

According, this petition is dismissed .

¶39

In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2023

¶40

does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

AKV

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:SK

Mr Varghese Mathew v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Varghese Mathew 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

Depak Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srihari Acharya. N Vs Sri. Vijaya Savanur. S. K.

Sri K Satish Kumar Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Amit Kumar Nepak Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Rafiqahmad Vs the State of Karnataka

Anthariksha v Vs M. Arjun Raj