Sri M B Ramu Vs State of Karnataka

S/O ANTHONY CRUZ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, GARAGE OWNER NO 136, OPPOSITE TO TOTAL GAS, INDIRANAGAR NEW BINNAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560038 R/AT NO 38/3, CHIKKANARASAPPA LANE APPA REDDY PALYA, NEAR AMBEDKAR COLLEGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038

¶13

SRI AYYAPPA VASAN, S/O LATE C T KODANDA RAMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO 1, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KRISHNAIAH PALYA, MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560038

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. PANCHAM R D, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶20

BY INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560100, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶21

SMT MAHADEVI D/O MUNIRAJU @ HADDUGADU, W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT SY NO.135 AND 136, OLD MADRAS ROAD, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 (AS PER PCR NO.10/2018) ALSO R/AT NO.163 NEW BINNAMANGALA SLUM INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038

¶22

SMT VARALAKSHMI D/O MUNIRAJU @ HADDUGADU, W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SY NO 135 AND 136, OLD MADRAS ROAD, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 (AS PER PCR NO.10/2018) ALSO R/AT NO.164 NEW BINNAMANGALA SLUM INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038

¶23

SMT MUNIRATHNA D/O MUNIRAJU @ HADDUGADU, W/O NANDEESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

R/AT SY NO 135 AND 136, OLD MADRAS ROAD,

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 (AS PER PCR NO.10/2018) ALSO R/AT NO.164 NEW BINNAMANGALA SLUM INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038

¶28

SMT PREETHI D/O MUNIRAJU @ HADDUGADU, W/O MADHU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SY NO 135 AND 136, OLD MADRAS ROAD, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 (AS PER PCR NO.10/2018) ALSO R/AT NO.163 NEW BINNAMANGALA SLUM INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038

¶29

SRI GOPALAKRISHNA S/O MUNIRAJU @ HADDUGADU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SY NO 135 AND 136, OLD MADRAS ROAD, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 (AS PER PCR NO.10/2018) ALSO R/AT NO.164 NEW BINNAMANGALA SLUM INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038

¶30

SMT RAMYA DAUGHTER OF MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT SY NO 135 AND 136, OLD MADRAS ROAD, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

(AS PER PCR NO.10/2018) ALSO R/AT NO.164 NEW BINNAMANGALA SLUM INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.A.J.MALLYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7)

¶37

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH71) IN SPL.C.NO.1740/2021 (PCR.NO.10/2018) THEREBY REGISTERING THE CASE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,420,464,465,467 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(f)(g)(p)(q)(r)(s), 3(2)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ISSUING THE SUMMONS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶38

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

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1, 3

¶41

and 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings pending

¶42

against them in Spl.C.No.1740/2021 (PCR.No.10/2018) for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 420, 464, 465, 467 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(p)(q)(r)(s),

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

3(2)(i)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe

¶47

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶48

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that on 08.03.2018, one Katamma and respondent Nos.2 to 7 have filed PCR.No.10/2018 falsely alleging that they tried to grab the property in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala, now called Indiranagar of Bengaluru, which property earlier belong to Sri.Prakash Babu, who went missing in the year 1999 and unheard of. Thereby, the said properties are succeeded by his wife Saraswathi, who is no other than daughter of Smt.Katamma, complainant No.1. The said Smt Katamma died on 28.06.2008. It is claimed that Smt.Katamma and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are residing in the said properties and they belong to Scheduled Caste and that accused No.1 has created a Will and taken their signatures as witnesses on 29.12.2006 and that the accused persons are trying to knock off the said property and that accused Nos.3 and 4

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

abused them referring to their caste and that all the accused have wrongfully occupied the portion of land in possession of Smt.Katamma and other complainants and trying to transfer the said property and dispossess them.

¶52

The Special Court referred the complaint for investigation to ACP, Ulsoor (Halasur) Gate PS. After investigation, 'B' report is filed. The sworn statement of complainants were recorded and Exs.P1 to 13 are marked. Vide order dated 27.09.2021, the Special Court has ordered for registering case, which is being challenged in the present petition.

¶53

The impugned order is not in accordance with law. A false complaint is filed against the accused persons to wreck vengeance against them. Several civil disputes are pending between the parties. Earlier Smt.Katamma had given complaint in Cr.No.348/2011 and later she gave statement that it was filed at the instigation of some one

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

and Smt.Saraswathi has executed a Will in favour of accused No.1 and withdrew the complaint. Complaint filed by more than one complainant is not maintainable and as such her entire complaint is vitiated. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is not sustainable and prays to allow the petition.

¶57

In support of his arguments, learned counsel

¶58

representing petitioners has relied upon the decision in Thethavusamy Vs. Radhakrishnan ( Thethavusamy )¹ .

¶59

On the other hand learned High Court

¶60

Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit that complainant No.1 is the mother of complainant Nos.2 to 6. Complainant No.7 is the grand daughter of complainant No.1 through her daughter Late Muninarayanamma. The 4^th daughter of complainant No.1 Smt.Saraswathi also passed away. All the complainants are

¶61

1 LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-120

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

residing in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala Village now

¶65

called as Indiranagar. Complainants belong to Scheduled Caste.

¶66

6.2 Learned HCGP would further submit that Late Saraswathi was given in marriage to Prakash Babu on 12.06.1994. The marriage was also registered. Prakash Babu inherited approximately to an extent of 2 1/2 acres in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala. Later a portion of the said land was acquired by BDA for the purpose of formation of 100 ft road. After utilizing the required land, the BDA re-conveyed 22,000 Sq.ft to the original owners. In the family partition, the said Prakash Babu became the absolute owner of the aforesaid extent together with remaining portion of 2 1/2 acres.

¶67

6.3 It is further submitted that after the marriage, Smt.Saraswathi came to know that Prakash Babu was suffering from mental ailment. By taking advantage of his

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

health condition, his relative were trying to separate him from his wife to knock off his property. During 1999, he mysteriously disappeared and in this connection, a complaint was filed. The relatives of Prakash Babu did not take his disappearance seriously, but indulged in fabricating documents. In fact his relatives filed habeas corpus petition in W.P(HC)No.54/1999, making allegations against his wife Smt.Saraswathi. However, when Prakash Babu was produced before the Court, he denied all the allegations made against his wife. He was allowed to join Smt.Saraswathi. Later he was abducted by his greedy relatives and since then, his whereabouts are not known.

¶71

6.4 It is further stated that at this juncture accused

¶72

No.1 who is an agent in RTO office sensed an opportunity to make unlawful gain and offered to help the complainants and Smt.Saraswathi. Though initially they believed him and produced the documents, later he inducted accused Nos.2 to 4 into the property and carry out their business. He is

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

extracting money from accused Nos.2 to 4. Accused Nos.1

¶77

and 2 have fabricated documents in the name of Munithayamma, the mother of Prakash Babu and erected a huge hoarding displaying advertising contents.

¶78

6.5. The money received from it is also enjoyed by accused No.1 and his son. After taking into consideration all these documents, the Assistant Revenue Officer issued a demand notice dated 19.09.2007. Accused No.1 has received more than Rs.1 Crore from accused No.2 though he is no way connected to the property. When questioned by the complainant, they were silenced by accused Nos.1 and 2. They have cheated the complainants. They have forged the signatures in the affidavit purported to be that of Munithayamma mother of Prakash Babu and obtained

¶79

license for erecting the hoardings. Munithayamma died long back before the alleged execution of the affidavit.

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

6.6 In the various writ petitions filed before the High

¶84

Court, accused No.1 has joined as interested party by claiming to be the well wishers of family members of complainant No.1. On several occasions, the Hon'ble High Court has issued directions to the Indiranagar Police to find out the whereabouts of Prakash Babu. There were orders passed in W.P(HC)No.45/2005 and WP(HC)No.234/2014 to preserve the property of Prakash Babu and it shall not be alienated without taking permission of the competent Court of Law. Smt.Saraswathi, who was one of the respondents in these writ petitions dies intestate on 28.06.2008. No Court of Law has declared the legal death of Prakash Babu and he has not sold his property to anyone. Accused No.1 has concocted a Will dated 29.12.2006 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi and taken the signatures of witnesses without informing them about the contents. Under the guise of safeguarding the interest of complainant and Smt.Saraswathi, accused has usurped the property of complainants. Accused persons are trying to set up title to

¶85

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the property in question. On 10.01.2018, accused No.1 and representatives of accused No.2 tried to enter into the land and attempted to paste advertisement contents on the hoardings.

¶88

6.7 On 24.02.2018, at 1.30 p.m, Indiranagar Police visited the sport and informed the complainant that accused No.3 has given a complaint against her for trespassing into his property. In this regard, complainants requested accused Nos.3 and 4 to vacate the portion of the property. Enraged by the same, they abused the complainants referring to their caste. On 27.02.2018, accused persons instigated the officials of BESCOM to disconnect the electricity connection and therefore, complaint is filed by the complainants.

¶89

6.8 The trial Court referred the complaint for

¶90

investigation to the concerned police. However, they have filed 'B' report. In this regard complainants have filed

¶91

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

protest petition. The allegations made in the complainant are required to be enquired into and established at the trial. Since the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(p)(q)(r)(s), 3(2)(i)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against the order taking cognizance, a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The petitioners are required to file appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST(POA) Act and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶94

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶95

respondent Nos.2 to 7 has relied upon the following decisions:

¶96

(i) R.Murugadoss alias Murugan Vs. State and Ors. ( R.Murugadoss )²

¶97

(ii) Om Kr. Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. ( Om Kr. Dhankar )³

¶98

(iii) Honnaiah T Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. ( Honnaiah )⁴

¶99

2 Crl.Original petition No.408/2008 Dt: 01.08.2012 (Madras)

¶100

3 Crl.Appeal No.464/2012 Dt: 28.02.2012

¶101

4 Crl.Appeal No.1147/2022 [SLP(Crl)No.2021/2022]

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

8. Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶106

From the material placed on record, it is evident

¶107

that the 4^th daughter of complainant No.1 i.e., Late Saraswathi was given in marriage to Prakash Babu and after his disappearance, she became the owner property in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala. Though a portion of the said land was acquired by BDA, out of it 22,000 Sq.ft was reconveyed. The allegations against he accused persons are that they are illegally occupying the said property and extracting money by installing hoarding for advertisements. They have also concocted and fabricated documents in the name of Munithayamma, the mother of Prakash Babu at a point of time when she was not alive and obtained permission for advertising by erecting hoardings.

¶108

There are also allegations that when complainant

¶109

tried to control over the said property, the accused persons illegally prevented them and also abused them referring to their caste. They have gone to the extent of getting the

¶110

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:24287 CRL.P No. 766 of 2022

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

electricity disconnected and putting snakes in their house, etc. Though the investigating officer has filed 'B' report, the perusal of the same clearly indicates that he has not properly investigated into the specific allegations made regarding concoction of documents. Therefore, considering the protest petition filed by the complainants, the Special Court has rightly taken cognizance and issued summons against the accused.

¶113

There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. The allegations are required to be established in a full fledged trial. The disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, petition fails and accordingly, the following:

¶114

ORDER

¶115

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused

¶116

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

¶117