Allowed

Smt Geetha v. Smt Shahima Begum

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024CRL.P/2661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Private complaint alleging that a decree for site No.130 was enforced against the respondent's site No.120 was dismissed by the Magistrate but revived against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in revision. The High Court quashed the revisional order, holding the petitioners had lawfully succeeded in civil proceedings and no offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

Revisional court's order dated 24.02.2018 set aside; Magistrate's order dated 16.06.2015 dismissing PCR No.635/2015 confirmed; complaint dismissed in its entirety.

Smt Geetha Vs Smt Shahima Begum — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2661 OF 2018 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. GEETHA W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDENT OF RANGANATHA COMPLEX, KASHIPURA ROAD, VINOBHANAGARA, SIVAMOGGA-577201 REPRESENETD BY GPA HOLDER OF K.R. KARIYAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENT BY KASHIPURA ROAD, VINOBHANAGAR SIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶9

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

K.H. KARIYAPPA, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENT BY KASHIPURA ROAD, VINOBHANAGARA, SIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶11

RAJAPPA S/O K.H. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF KASIPURA ROAD, VINOBHANAGAR SIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI: B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶16

AND

¶17

SMT. SHAHIMA BEGUM W/O IMTHIYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O ARINAKOPPA VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI POST, HOBLI, SIVAMOGGA-577416.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR.G., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.R.P.102/2015 DATED 24.2.2018 AND CONFORMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN PCR NO.635/2015 DATED 16.6.2015 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.03.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

“Call for records and set aside the order passed by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge at Shivamogga in Crl.R.P. 102/2015 dated 24.02.2018 and confirming the order passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Shivamogga in PCR No.635/2015 dated 16.06.2015 and grant such other relief as this Hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶25

The respondent had filed a private complaint under

¶26

section 200 of CrPC alleging that the petitioners had

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶28

committed offences under sections 349, 350, 390, 391, 420, 441, 442, 443, 445, 448, 506 and 507 of IPC.

¶29

The respondent had alleged that she is the owner of site No.130 situated in Sy.No.23, ward No.35. Alkola circle, Shivamogga, having purchased the same from Godikoppa Mandal panchayat in a public auction. On the said property coming within the jurisdiction of the Shivamogga municipality, said property was renumbered as Municipal No.959/884. It is further contended that she had built a house on the said property.

¶30

The allegations made against the petitioners is that the petitioners had by falsely indicating site No.130 had obtained orders in various proceedings and filed an execution proceedings wherein the order in respect of site No.130 was sought to be enforced against the property of the petitioners, the movable properties of the petitioners were thrown out of the house and many of the articles were taken

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶32

away/stolen causing financial loss to the respondent and it is in regard thereto, action was sought to be initiated against the petitioners. The said complaint has been dismissed by the trial court vide judgement dated 16.06.2015 in PCR No.615/2015 on the ground that the allegations made do not attract any penal offences.

¶33

The respondent filed revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No. 102/2015, III Addl. Civil Judge, Shivamogga vide his order dated 24.02.2018 allowed the same in part, set aside the order in respect of accused No.1 to 3, the petitioners herein and confirmed the order in respect of accused No.4 to 7 therein and further directed the Magistrate to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 that is the petitioners herein in accordance with law. It is challenging the same that the petitioners are before this court.

¶34

Sri.B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that;

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶37

6.1. The respondent filed a suit in OS No. 196/2003 against CMC, Shivamogga for injunction in respect of site No.120 in Sy.No.23 of Shivamogga city which came to be decreed. The petitioner No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No. 258/2003 against the respondent for permanent injunction in respect of site number 130 in survey No. 23. An issue having been raised in the said matter as regards the identity of the property as regards distinction between site No.130 and 120, a commissioner was appointed, who had submitted a report that both site Nos.130 and 120 exist and they are different properties. Thereafter taking into account the evidence which had been led in O.S. No. 258/2003, same was decreed in favour of petitioner No.1.

¶38

6.2. The respondent preferred regular appeal in R.A. No.45/2006 which came to be dismissed on 23.11.2006. The petitioner No.1 thereafter filed

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶40

an eviction case in HRC No.10/2009 against one Mr.Satish and Mr.Mandya Kumar in respect of site No.130 which came to be allowed and they were directed to deliver possession. In furtherance thereof the petitioner filed execution petition No. 35/2015 where an order

¶41

of delivery of possession was passed on 18.02.2015 through court Bailiff with police help.

¶42

6.3. In the meanwhile, the respondent and her son filed O.S. No.143/2015 for a temporary injunction in respect of site number 120. Though an exparte order of temporary injunction was granted therein, subsequently on the petitioners entering appearance and filing an application under order 39 rule 4 of CPC the said order of injunction came to be vacated. Thereafter a Miscellaneous appeal in Misc.A. No.26/2015 being filed by respondent and her son, said appeal came to be allowed granting

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶45

temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the suit schedule property.

¶46

6.4. A writ petition in W.P. No.34464/2015 having been filed by the petitioner, an injunction was granted restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶47

6.5. In the meanwhile, the decree in HRC No. 10/2009 was sought to be enforced by the petitioner in Ex.No.35/2015 which is a legal remedy availed of by the petitioners and cannot be faulted with.

¶48

6.6. He submits that the manner in which the allegations have been made after judgements and decrees having been passed in favour of the petitioner which has been confirmed in an appeal would categorically indicate and establish that the respondent has no right, title or interest in site No.130, at the most interest is in site No.120, which is a different property.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶50

Despite the properties being different,

¶51

respondent has been filing and contesting proceedings unnecessarily as also filed criminal complaints.

¶52

6.7. His submission is that respondent herself does not know which property belongs to her inasmuch as in the complaint, it is alleged that respondent is owner of site No.130 and it is that property which is sought to be interfered with. The respondent has no right, title or interest in respect of Site No.130 which belongs to the petitioner. The eviction order having been passed against the tenants of the petitioner, executed against such tenants, respondent cannot have any grievance.

¶53

6.8. On these grounds, he submits that the order of the Magistrate is required to be confirmed by setting aside the order passed by the Revisional court.

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶55

Sri.Shashidhar.G, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it is by mistake that site No.130 has been mentioned in the complaint, what is meant by the complainant is site No.120. He submits that the petitioners by making use of a decree passed in respect of site No.130 has enforced it against site No.120 and as such, the aforesaid offences have been committed, as regards which action is required to be taken against the petitioners.

¶56

His submission is that the order passed in the Execution Petition could not have been enforced as regards site No.120 which belongs to the respondent. As such, he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed.

¶57

Heard Sri.B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Shashidhar.G, learned counsel for respondent. Perused papers.

¶58

The Magistrate vide order dated 16.06.2015 was pleased to dismiss PCR No.635/2015 on the ground that the properties were different and that execution

¶59

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶60

of a decree in respect of site No.130 will not make out any criminal offence. The revisional court partly allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondent insofar as setting aside the said order in respect of the petitioners but confirmed the said order against accused No.4 to 7. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the police officers, accused No.6 is the Court Ameen and accused No.7 is an advocate of the petitioners.

¶61

Thus, the revisional Court confirmed the order of dismissal in respect of the police officers, court ameen and the advocate of the petitioners. The reason why the order was upheld against respondents No.4 to 7 is that they were public servants, there is no sanction obtained under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and further that they had acted in terms of a Judgment or order of the court.

¶62

Having upheld the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint against accused No.4 to 6, the revisional court was of the opinion that proceedings have to continue against accused No.1 to 3 who are

¶63

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶64

the petitioners herein, I am unable to agree with the reasoning given by the revisional court inasmuch as if accused No.4 to 6 were not at fault and that they had acted in terms of the order passed directing issuance of delivery warrant, the affidavit filed by accused No.4 to 6 being that the execution was complete in respect of site No.130, it fails to reason as to how the revisional Court could have come to a conclusion that by making use of an order as regards site No.130, the same is enforced against site No.120.

¶65

The Revisional court having categorically held accused No.4 to 6 have acted in accordance with law, it cannot be said that accused No.1 to 3 have acted contrary when what is enforced is delivery warrant in terms of site No.130 as per the report field by accused No.6.

¶66

The proceedings having been initiated by petitioner No.1, petitioner No.1 having succeeded in the suit, as also in the appeal and lastly in the HRC petition for

¶67

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶68

eviction, it is clear that the petitioners have followed the applicable law, approached the concerned court and have succeeded in the proceedings filed by them. The respondent having failed in all the proceedings filed by her has sought to take a contention that an order against site No.130 was sought to be implemented against site No.120, which is not established by any document on record.

¶69

The trial Court in O.S. No.196/2003 having categorically held that both sites were different and the Commissioner who had been appointed, had identified the site, the respondent cannot continue to contend that an order against site No.130 is sought to be implemented against site No.120. The stand and action on part of the respondent appears to be completely malafide and contrary to the various orders and Judgments in the aforesaid proceedings.

¶70

The revisional court having upheld the order of dismissal as regards accused No.4 to 7 ought not to

¶71

13 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:12944 CRL.P No. 2661 of 2018

¶73

have continued the proceedings against accused No.1

¶74

to 3. As such, I pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶77

ii. The order dated 24.02.2018 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga is setaside and the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga in PCR No.635/2014 is hereby confirmed.

¶78

iii. PCR No.635/2014 stands dismissed in its entirety.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79

Smt Geetha v. Smt Shahima Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha v. Smt Shahima Begum

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

Nayana Suvarna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Madhusudan D Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Arka Educational and Cultural Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Radhika Achutan Vs M/S Madhu Steel Corporation

Mr. Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagya Vs Smt Bhanumathi