Allowed¶36

Mallappa S/O Hulgappa Vaddar v. Smt. Devamma W/O Basappa Ilger

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2025CRL.P/100410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC; private complaint under Section 200 CrPC; cognizance by Magistrate; civil dispute given criminal colour/texture; abuse of process of law; prior civil suit O.S. No.120/2019 for permanent injunction; temporary injunction; plaint silent on assault/outraging of modesty/threats; IPC Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 r/w 149; Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Kushtagi/Kustagi; PC No.100/2019; C.C. No.498/2021; decision dated 10.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.498/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kustagi, insofar as they relate to the petitioners, quashed. ¶36

Mallappa S/O Hulgappa Vaddar Vs Smt. Devamma W/O Basappa Ilger — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:432 CRL.P No. 100410 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100410 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MALLAPPA S/O. HULGAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

¶7

PARASAPPA S/O. HULGAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

¶8

BHARAMAPPA S/O. HULGAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

¶9

RAMAPPA S/O. HULGAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

¶10

SANNA BASAPPA S/O. HULGAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

¶11

MUDIYAPPA S/O. HULGAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

¶12

ALL ARE R/O. NILOGAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL–583280.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.16 05:30:53 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI. SAURABH A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. DEVAMMA W/O. BASAPPA ILGER, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, NILOGAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL – 583280.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PC NO.100/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHTAGI, REGISTERED

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:432 CRL.P No. 100410 of 2022

¶22

FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, AS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONERS.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners challenge the cognizance taken for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶27

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the petitioners, along with other accused, criminally trespassed into her land, assaulted her, outraged her modesty, and threatened her with dire consequences.

¶28

The learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 6, and 8, while dismissing the complaint against accused Nos. 4 and 7.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, regarding the same incident of 25.04.2019, the respondent had filed a civil suit in O.S. No.120/2019 seeking a permanent injunction. In the said suit, an order of temporary injunction was granted restraining the petitioners from interfering with the respondent’s peaceful possession. However, the civil suit does not mention any allegations of assault, outraging modesty, or threats

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:432 CRL.P No. 100410 of 2022

¶31

made by the petitioners. The counsel argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been given a criminal color to harass the petitioners.

¶32

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the allegations in the private complaint disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance, and the veracity of the allegations should be determined at trial, not at this stage. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the petition.

¶33

The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered.

¶34

The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that on 25.04.2019, the petitioners trespassed into the subject land and interfered with her possession. However, a perusal of the plaint indicates no reference to allegations of assault, outraging of modesty, or threats by the petitioners. Therefore, it appears that the allegations made in the FIR stem from a civil dispute between the parties, but have been given a criminal texture to harass the petitioners. As such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:432 CRL.P No. 100410 of 2022

¶39

ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.498/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kustagi, insofar as it relates to petitioners herein, is hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Mallappa S/O Hulgappa Vaddar v. Smt. Devamma W/O Basappa Ilger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallappa S/O Hulgappa Vaddar v. Smt. Devamma W/O Basappa Ilger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Transvision Software and Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harish N v Vs the State by Cbi/Scb/Chennai

B L Shastry Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Sri Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Kpr Agro Chem Ltd. Vs Raju S/O Dharmaji Chavan

Somanagouda Mahadevagouda Ramanagoudra Vs the State of Karnataka