Dismissed

Sri N Balaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/5805/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR for IPC offences. The Court held that specific allegations of criminal trespass, destruction of property, and intimidation prevented the case from being a civil dispute, especially as the criminal complaint preceded the civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the criminal proceedings was denied.

Sri N Balaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36846 CRL.P No. 5805 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5805 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. N. BALARAJU SON OF NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. ROOPAVATHI, WIFE OF N. BALARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.19, NANJUNDAGOWDA STREET, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, DODDAMAVALLI, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004

¶12

SRI. M. RAM MOHAN @ RAM SHETTY, S/O PEDDANAGAPPA SHETTI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/16, SIDDEGOWDA ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA M.V., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURYANAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE DIST, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36846 CRL.P No. 5805 of 2021

¶19

SRI. H.K. NAGARAJ SON OF LATE H. KESHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1201, 8^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, II PHASE, CHANDRU LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL.S.P.P. FOR R1)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.339/2019 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE ON 05.10.2019 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 506, 418, 420, 120B, 441, 417, 353, 468, 464 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.8, 9, 11.

¶23

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners being accused Nos.8, 9 and 11 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings registered in Cr.No.339/2019 of Suryanagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 418, 420, 120B, 441, 417, 352, 468, 464 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') pending on the file of the learned

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:36846 CRL.P No. 5805 of 2021

¶29

II Additional Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶30

Heard Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Hence, his arguments is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record.

¶31

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was dispute and ill-will between the petitioners and the complainant. Even a Civil case in OS.204/2019 filed by petitioner No.2 is pending consideration, wherein, he has sought for grant of perpetual injunction. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, which was given the colour of criminal offence.

¶32

Per contra, learned Additional SPP opposing the petition submitted that the offence alleged by the informant is purely of criminal nature. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. Even as per the charge sheet, the petitioners along with co-accused criminally tress-passed into the site belonging to informant on 08.09.2019, destroyed the barbed wire fence, abused the informant in filthy language, criminally

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36846 CRL.P No. 5805 of 2021

¶34

intimidated to cause his death by burying him under the ground. Under such circumstances, the offences in question cannot be termed as civil dispute. Since serious allegations are made against the petitioners and co-accused for having committed the offences, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

In view of the contentions urged by the learned

¶36

Additional SPP, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶37

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?

¶38

My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the

¶39

following:

¶40

R E A S O N S

¶41

The informant has lodged the first information making specific allegations that the accused have criminally trespassed into the site and by using criminal force, demolished the barbed wire fence by using JCB and criminally intimidated to bury him under the ground. When such specific allegations

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36846 CRL.P No. 5805 of 2021

¶43

are made against the accused including the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.8, 9 and 11, it cannot be said that the allegations in question are of civil nature.

¶44

Even though, it is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 had filed OS No.204/2019 seeking perpetual injunction against respondent No.2, it is noticed that the suit was filed on 24.12.2019, whereas, the first information by respondent No.2 came to be filed on 09.09.2019 that is much prior to filing of the suit. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the petitioners in the petition that the allegations are of civil nature cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is dismissed.

¶47

In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA No.1/2021 is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶49

BH: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri N Balaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Balaraju v. the 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

Mahesh T S Vs State of Karnataka

S.B. Shivarudhrappa Vs B.S. Prabhakar

Smt Vanitha Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Ashwini D K Vs State of Karnataka

Devangi Sanghi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Kiran. M. S. Vs State of Karnataka by