Sri Prabhakar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI PRABHAKAR REDDY S/O P VENKATARAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO.27, I MAIN ASHEERWAD COLONY VARAMAVI MAIN ROAD, BANASAWADI BANGALORE NORTH-560043

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR BELAGUMBA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HENNUR POLICE STATION, HENNUR BANGALORE-560043 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01

¶15

SRI VENKATESH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.126, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560043

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:33006 CRL.P No. 12589 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

V/O DTD: 25.06.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.50313/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ACMM BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.447,504,506 OF IPC IN CR.NO.21/2016 OF HENNUR POLICE STATION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is by

¶26

the accused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.50313/2019 on the file of XI ACCM, Mayohall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶27

In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that petitioner's wife has purchased Site No.101, carved out in converted Sy.No.22/2 of Horamavu, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. She is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her name is

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33006 CRL.P No. 12589 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

entered in the revenue records. On 19.01.2016, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against petitioner and 20 others in Cr.No.21/2016 of Hennur PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 343, 447, 323, 324, 326, 354, 427 r/w Section 149 IPC and after conducting investigation, charge sheet is filed.

¶31

Since from the date of purchase, the wife of petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Respondent No.2 is not at all in possession. She has filed a false complaint. She is not in possession of the property in dispute and as such question of trespass would not arise. No medical records are produced to show that respondent was injured in the alleged incident. The allegations made in the complaint does not attract the provisions for which charge sheet is filed. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33006 CRL.P No. 12589 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for

¶35

respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State would submit that the land measuring 12 guntas in Sy.No.38/1B of Horamavu belongs to the father-in-law of respondent No.2. He was taking care of the same. On 19.01.2016, at 2.00 p.m when respondent No.2, his father Narayanappa, Sister Pushpa, Niece Kavya, mother Ramakka and father-in-law Jayaram went to the said land, petitioner and 12 persons were engaged in construction in the said land. About 20 persons were holding stones and clubs. When they questioned those persons as to why they are constructing, petitioner and 5 persons caught hold of him and assaulted with hands. Another person assaulted him with a stone on his mouth and back portion of his head. Another person assaulted him with a club on his knee cap. 3 persons assaulted him with hands.

¶36

In the scuffle, he lost Rs.8,000/- kept in his shirt pocket. When his mother Ramakka intervened, she was

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33006 CRL.P No. 12589 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

pushed around by 5 persons. Similarly, his father Narayanappa was assaulted by 2 persons with hands. His sister Pushpa, Niece Kavya were also assaulted. When Kavya was recording the incident, 2 of them tried to outrage her modesty. The mangalya chain of Ramakka and Pushpa went missing. He has lost 2 upper and 2 lower tooth. In this regard complaint is filed by respondent No.2. Based on the same, case is registered and after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. It makes out a strong prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶40

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶41

Thus, while petitioner claim that his wife has purchased a site in Sy.No.22/2 and in possession and enjoyment of the same, it is contended by the defactocomplainant/respondent No.2 that Sy.No.38/1B belongs to his father-in-law and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and at his instance, he is taking care of it. Thus, there is rival contention between the parties in respect of

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33006 CRL.P No. 12589 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the same property, but they are stated to be in different survey numbers. It is not clear whether these two survey numbers are adjoining to each other or overlapping or the same property is being referred to by different survey numbers.

¶45

Though basically the dispute seems to be civil in nature, as evident from the charge sheet, on 19.01.2016, the complainant and his family members were assaulted by the petitioner and others committed criminal trespass, abused and gave threat. The parties cannot take law into their own hands. They can get the dispute resolved before a civil Court. As evident from the material placed on record, so far there is no civil suit filed by either of the parties to establish their claim over the property in dispute. In the light of the prima facie case made out in the charge sheet, matter requires full fledged trial and the same cannot be quashed and accordingly, the following:

¶46