Allowed¶42

Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Shrimanth Holkar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2025CRL.P/100746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 06.01.2025, Hemant Chandangoudar J — Mahadevi v. State of Karnataka & Pandurang Pujeri: S. 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition; omnibus allegations against accused No. 6; title/possession dispute pending in O.S. No. 133/2021; criminal trespass S. 447 IPC cannot be decided where possession uncertain; CC No.7/2022 (Crime No.164/2021, Mudalagi PS) proceedings quashed qua accused No. 6.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in CC No.7/2022 pending before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi, insofar as they relate to the petitioner – accused No. 6. ¶42

Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Shrimanth Holkar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in CC No.7/2022 pending before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi, insofar as they relate to the petitioner – accused No. 6.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (accused No. 6) in CC No.07/2022 ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the allegations against her are vague, omnibus and lack specific particulars of her role. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

A perusal of the charge-sheet materials reveals no specific details or evidence as to how and in what manner accused No. 6 abused or threatened the complainant; the allegations against her are omnibus and general in nature, lacking the requisite specificity needed to proceed against her for the offences alleged.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The resolution of the title and possession dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court; criminal proceedings cannot be used as a substitute to adjudicate issues related to title and possession.

¶35

Key takeaways

Where title and possession of the property are the subject of a pending civil dispute, the determination of possession and ownership is central to the pending civil suit and cannot be preemptively or conclusively decided in a criminal proceeding under Section 447 IPC.ratio¶39
The petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in CC No.7/2022, insofar as they relate to the petitioner – accused No. 6, stand quashed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Hemant Chandangoudar J), 06.01.2025 — CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022 filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Mahadevi (accused No. 6) seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No.07/2022 (Crime No.164/2021, Mudalgi Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC, arising from an alleged incident of 17.10.2021 on land Sy. No. 23/1. The court found the allegations against accused No. 6 omnibus and devoid of any specific detail as to how she abused or threatened the complainant, and held that since title and possession were subject to pending civil suit O.S. No. 133/2021 (filed by accused No. 2 on a relinquishment deed), lawful possession could not be conclusively determined in a criminal proceeding under Section 447 IPC; criminal proceedings cannot substitute civil adjudication of title and possession. Petition allowed; proceedings against accused No. 6 quashed. Respondent No. 2 (complainant) served but unrepresented, placed ex parte.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:87 CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100746 OF 2022

¶5

(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SHRIMANTH HOLKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, RAIBAG TOWN, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 319.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH P.S.I. MUDALGI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI ASHPAK Location: HIGH KASHIMSA COURT OF MALAGALADINNI KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.09 12:51:08 +0530

¶13

PANDURANG S/O LAXMAN PUJERI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VADERATTI PATIL TOTA, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 312.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; R2-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:87 CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDALAGI IN CC NO.07/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN (CRIME NO.164/2021) CC NO.07/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDALAGI, PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 447, 323, 504, 506, R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner (accused No. 6) has been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2021, the accused persons, by forming an unlawful assembly, allegedly entered the land bearing Sy. No. 23/1, belonging to the complainant. When the accused attempted to cultivate the said

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:87 CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022

¶26

land, the complainant questioned their actions. At that time, accused Nos. 4 to 7 allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Further, it is alleged that accused No. 1 caught hold of the complainant’s neck and threatened to harm him if he did not vacate the land. These allegations form the basis of the criminal proceedings, which are being challenged in this petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the de facto complainant had relinquished the land in favor of accused No. 2, and there exists a title dispute over the said property, which is the subject matter of O.S. No. 133/2021 pending before the competent Civil Court. Counsel further contended that the allegations against accused No. 6 are vague and omnibus, with no specific details as to how or in what manner accused No. 6 assaulted or threatened the complainant. It was argued that continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No. 6, in the absence of specific allegations, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

¶28

Despite service of notice, respondent No. 2 (the complainant) has not appeared in person or through counsel and is thus placed ex parte.

¶29

Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for respondent No. 1/State argued that the allegations in the chargesheet materials prima facie disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioner. The Learned AGA submitted that the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:87 CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022

¶32

veracity of the allegations is a matter to be adjudicated at the stage of trial.

¶33

After considering the submissions of both parties, the following observations are made:

¶34

(a) The specific allegation against accused No. 6 is that she, along with accused Nos. 4, 5, and 7, abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. However, a perusal of the charge-sheet materials reveals no specific details or evidence as to how and in what manner accused No. 6 abused or threatened the complainant. The allegations against accused No. 6 are omnibus and general in nature, lacking the requisite specificity needed to proceed against her for the offences alleged.

¶35

(b) The title and possession of the land in question are disputed and are the subject matter of O.S. No. 133/2021, a civil suit filed by accused No. 2, seeking a declaration of absolute ownership and possession of the subject property based on a relinquishment deed executed in his favor. The resolution of such a dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the criminal proceedings cannot be used as a substitute to adjudicate issues related to title and possession.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:87 CRL.P No. 100746 of 2022

¶37

7. Section 441 of the IPC, which defines criminal trespass, states:

¶38

“Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property is said to commit criminal trespass.”

¶39

When there is a pending civil dispute regarding the title and possession of the subject property, it becomes uncertain whether respondent No. 2 was in lawful possession of the land at the time of the alleged incident. The determination of possession and ownership is central to the pending civil suit and cannot be preemptively or conclusively decided in a criminal proceeding under Section 447 of the IPC.

¶40

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.7/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.6 stands quashed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶46

bkm ct:bck

Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Shrimanth Holkar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Shrimanth Holkar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Salman @ Mohammed Salman Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivasa B T Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sherin Vattapara Bovas Vs Mr Madhukar G Angur

Nagaraja S/O Nagajja Vs the State of Karnataka

Vithal S/O Babu Kesti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahesh S/O Ashok Kalale Vs the State of Karnataka