Allowed

Sri. Venkataravanappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2024CRL.P/927/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for trespass offences over disputed agricultural land, relying on an Assistant Commissioner's order finding respondent No.2 had tampered with the regularization application. Finding no case could proceed pending the land dispute resolution, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed C.C.No.484/2018.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.484/2018 quashed; pending applications disposed.

Sri. Venkataravanappa Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.927 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶8

SRI.HARISHA S/O SRI.DOBI VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶9

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT KAGANAPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 207

¶12

SRI.VENKATAVANAPPA S/O SRI.VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT PEDDARAJUPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK

¶13

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 207

¶14

SRI.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O SRI.NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT 1^ST WARD, VALMIKI NAGARA BAGEPALLI TOWN

¶15

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 207

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶17

SRI.KIRAN KUMAR S/O SRI.GUNIKADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT MUDDULAPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 207

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI.GIREESHA R.J, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561 207 REPRESENTED BY HGGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560001

¶22

SRI.SATYANARAYANA S/O SRI.VADIGIRI VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KAGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561207

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R.1;

¶25

SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR B A, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.484/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGEPALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.109,143,147,447,427,504, 506,149 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The captioned criminal petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.484/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC.

¶32

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 – Defacto Complainant has lodged a complaint on 04.04.2018 alleging that his father namely Vadigiri Venkataravanappa sought regularization in respect of Sy. No.29 measuring 3 acres and the same was granted to his father on 19.10.2016 and family of respondent No.2 post regularization by the Competent Authority are in lawful possession. Respondent No.2 further alleged that post grant, they have fenced the land. It is further alleged that on 15.04.2017, the present petitioners illegally trespassed into the land and destroyed compound and respondent No.2 – Complainant has lodged a complaint,

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶34

which is registered in Crime No.135/2018. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 25.03.2018 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioners again illegally trespassed into the land with sticks and have damaged roof and doors of the room constructed in the land in question and have caused damage of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also alleged in the complaint that when respondent No.2 – Complainant went to the land in question on 26.03.2018 at about 10.00 a.m in the morning to cultivate the land in question, the petitioners – accused used filthy language and abused complainant and gave a life threat to respondent No.2 – Complainant.

¶35

The Investigating Officer having registered the

¶36

crime investigated the matter and laid a charge sheet.

¶37

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the

¶38

proceedings and reliance is placed on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 20.11.2020 pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court in

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶40

W.P.No.17973/2018. Referring to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that even if the allegations in the charge sheet materials are accepted in entirety, no case is made out against the petitioners. The Competent Authority, while adjudicating petitioners’ claim over the land in question as well as the claim of respondent No.2, has declined to entertain the claim made by respondent No.2 over the land in question bearing Sy. No.29 measuring 3 acres. Referring to the said document, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶41

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP and perused the charge sheet materials and also order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶42

The short point that falls for consideration before this Court is;

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶44

Whether petitioners can be tried for the

¶45

offences indicated in the charge sheet?

¶46

The charge sheet materials would indicate that

¶47

respondent No.2 – complainant has some semblance of title over the land in question and only on proof of title, the allegations made in the complaint followed by the charge sheet materials, the petitioners can be prosecuted for the above said offences.

¶48

It is relevant to note that the controversy as to

¶49

whether who has a right over the land in question is given a quietus by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.11.2020. It would be useful for this Court to refer to the relevant portion, which reads as under

¶50

“ಕಡತದ��ರುವ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು� ಪ�ಾಂಭ�ಸ�ಾ� ,

¶51

ತಹ�ೕ�ಾ� ರವರು ಸ� � !ೊಂ#ರುವ ಮೂಲ ಮಂಜೂ� ಕಡತದ��ರುವ ನಮೂ'ೆ -53 ರ ಅ)ಯ ಪ,-ಯ�� .ೆಂಕಟರವಣಪ1 ( ವ#�� ) 23 �ೋ2 �ೇ4 .ೆಂಕ5ಾ,ಯಪ1 ರವರು 6ಾ7ೇಪ�� 8ಾಲೂ�ಕು !ಾ7ಾನಪ��7ಾ,ಮದಸ . ನಂ :29 ರ�� 3-00 ಎಕ�ೆ ಜ:ೕನು ಮಂಜೂ�ಾ- !ೋ� ಸ� � ರುವ ಅ)ಯ�� ವಯಸ;ನು� <ಾಗೂ ತಂ�ೆಯ<ೆಸರನು� -ರು=ರು>ರುವ?ದು <ಾಗೂ ಅ)�ಾರರ<ೆಸ�ನ

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶53

ಮುಂ�ೆ ವ#ಗ� ಎಂದು @ಾA ಬದ�ಾವCೆDಾ�ರುವ?ದು ಕಡತದ�� ಲಭE>ರುವ�ಾಖ�ೆಗFಂದಕಂಡುಬರುತG�ೆ .

¶54

<ಾಗೂ ವ#�� .ೆಂಕಟರಮಣಪ1 23 .ೆಂಕ5ಾ,ಯಪ1 ರವ�7ೆ ತಹ�ೕ�ಾ� 6ಾ7ೇಪ�� 8ಾಲೂ�ಕು ರವರು ಎH _._ ಎ3 _._ # _._ ಆ _._ ಯು _._ � _419/98-99_ J _:08.05.2017_ ರಂ8ೆ ಮಂಜೂ�ಾ� KಮLತುG Mಾವ-�!ೊಂಡು J _:19.05.2017_ ರಂದು NಾಗುವF =ೕO Pೕ#ರುವ?ದು ಮೂಲ ಮಂಜೂ� ಕಡತದ�� ಲಭE>ರುವ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳಂ8ೆ ಕಂಡುಬರುತG�ೆ . <ಾಗೂ ಇ�ೇ ಜ:ೕP7ೆ ಸಂಬಂR�ದಂ8ೆ .ೆಂಕಟರವಣಪ1 23.ೆಂಕಟ�ಾಯಪ1 ರವರು ಸ<ಾ ನಮೂ'ೆ -53 ರಅ)*ಯನು� ಸ� � ರುವ?ದುಕಂಡುಬರುತG�ೆ .”

¶55

On meticulous examination of the order passed

¶56

by the Assistant Commissioner, there is a conclusive finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner during the course of enquiry. The order clearly reveals that it is respondent No.2, who has tried to tamper the application filed by the petitioners in Form No.53 seeking regularization of the land in question. This aspect is noticed by the Assistant Commissioner in the course of the order. The Assistant Commissioner has also noticed that in Form No.53, the name of the applicant is tampered. The Assistant Commissioner, while referring the matter for further enquiry, has noticed that petitioner No.1 has filed

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶58

an application in Form No.53 and he has taken note of the fact that acknowledging the application filed by petitioner No.1, the land is regularized. Referring to these significant details, the Assistant Commissioner has now referred matter to the Committee to ascertain the fact as to who is in possession of the land in question by carrying out spot inspection. He has further directed the Committee to decide the claim made by petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.2 in accordance with law. If application filed in Form No.53 is examined by the Assistant Commissioner and is of the opinion that petitioner No.1 has filed an application in Form No.53, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the above said offences cannot be permitted to proceed further.

¶59

If such a recourse is adopted, the same would lead to abuse of process. Respondent No.2 before establishing his right over the land bearing Sy. No.29 measuring 3 acres has launched criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The question as to who is in

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶61

unauthorized occupation over agriculture land bearing Sy. No.29 and who is entitled for regularization, needs to be decided by the Committee as indicated in the Assistant Commissioner’s order.

¶62

If the claim of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is pending consideration, in the light of the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner that the present application filed in Form No.53 is, in fact, submitted by the petitioner No.1 would clinch the entire controversy and therefore, no purpose would be served if the prosecution is permitted to proceed with the Criminal Proceedings against the petitioners. Even if the entire materials are accepted in the light of the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.L.N.D:R.A:118/201819 vide order dated 20.11.2020, no case is made out against the petitioners.

¶63

In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following;

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:6730 CRL.P No. 927 of 2020

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶68

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.484/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC are hereby quashed.

¶69

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

NBM

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Venkataravanappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkataravanappa 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

Smt Kavitha Kumari K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N C Sanjeevan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Narasu Kalantere Vs the State of Karnataka

Sayed Anwar Vs the Managing Director Kptcl

Smt Savitha C M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Krishnamurthy Vs the Commissioner