Kuruvatteppa S/O Sannaadiveppa Banakar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kuruvatteppa S/O Sannaadiveppa Banakar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned proceedings in CC No.1428/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur stand quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners-accused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in CC No.1428/2021 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 IPC ought to be quashed, given that the underlying cart-road dispute is civil and sub judice before this Court and the charge-sheet contains no wound certificate supporting the injury allegation.

Court's answer

Since the dispute regarding the cart road is pending in RSA No. 100175/2021 and the trial-court decree recognizing the complainant's exclusive right has been stayed by this Court, the dispute is sub judice and the criminal court cannot adjudicate the complainant's claims while the matter is pending before this Court.

Ratio / Principle

The charge-sheet materials do not include a wound certificate to substantiate that the complainant sustained simple injuries as alleged, which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 323 of the IPC.

Key takeaways

The dispute arises out of the use of the cart road and is essentially a civil matter given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance; continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of proceedings — Petitioners/accused prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC arising out of a dispute over a cart road giving access to agricultural land in Survey No. 104, Hulikatte village, between blood relatives — Decree of trial court recognizing the complainant's exclusive right to the cart road stayed by the High Court, appeal pending in RSA No. 100175/2021 — Dispute regarding the cart road sub judice; criminal court cannot adjudicate the complainant's claims while the matter is pending before the High Court — Charge-sheet materials contain no wound certificate substantiating the simple injuries alleged, which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 323 IPC — Dispute essentially civil, given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance — Continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law — Entire proceedings in CC No.1428/2021 quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:283 CRL.P No. 101117 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101117 OF 2022

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

BETWEEN:

KURUVATTEPPA S/O. SANNAADIVEPPA BANAKAR AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE,

TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

HANUMANTAPPA S/O. SANNAADIVEPPA BANAKAR AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

MANJAPPA S/O. IRAPPA BANAKAR AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.13 15:17:08 +0530

GIRISH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA BANAKAR AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

UMESH S/O. IRAPPA BANAKAR AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. KURUVATTEPPA BANAKAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE,

TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

SHIVU S/O. KURUVATTEPPA BANAKAR AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:283 CRL.P No. 101117 of 2022

R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR,

DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

IRANNA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA BANAKAR AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUMARAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD, AT DHARWAD – 580011.

PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O. IRAPPA BANAKAR AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. FORMER, R/O. HULIKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1428/2021 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.50/2021 BEFORE KUMARAPATTANAM POLICE STATION) PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JMFC, RANEBENNUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 323 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:283 CRL.P No. 101117 of 2022

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused are sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). They are before this Court challenging the same.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/accused and the charge-sheet witnesses are blood relatives. They own agricultural land in Survey No. 104, situated at Hulikatte village. The complainant claims a right to access his land through a cart road. The prosecution alleges that the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, obstructed the complainant and his family members from using the cart road and assaulted the complainant. The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree passed by the trial court in relation to the cart road has been stayed by this Court in RSA No. 100175/2021. It was argued that since the dispute regarding the cart road is pending before this Court, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is impermissible. Furthermore, it was submitted that there is no wound certificate to substantiate the complainant’s claim of sustaining simple injuries, which is required to constitute an offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Hence, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, though it has been given a criminal dimension.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:283 CRL.P No. 101117 of 2022

Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for respondent No. 1-State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that the charge-sheet materials disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners. They contended that the veracity of the allegations requires consideration during trial and cannot be adjudicated in this petition.

Admittedly, a dispute regarding the cart road is pending between the parties in RSA No. 100175/2021. The complainant alleges an absolute right to use the cart road to access his land in Survey No. 104. The decree passed by the trial court, recognizing the complainant’s exclusive right, has been stayed by this Court. Therefore, the dispute regarding the cart road is sub judice, and the criminal court cannot adjudicate the complainant’s claims while the matter is pending consideration before this Court.

Moreover, the charge-sheet materials do not include a wound certificate to substantiate that the complainant sustained simple injuries as alleged, which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Thus, the dispute arises out of the use of the cart road and appears to be a civil matter, though it has been given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

For the reasons stated above, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:283 CRL.P No. 101117 of 2022

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1428/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused stands quashed.

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69