Sri L Manjunathaswamy Vs the State by Kollegal Town Police

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 45075 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI L MANJUNATHASWAMY S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FORMER INCHARGE COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGAL CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PRESENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU CITY CORPORATION, TUMAKURU-572101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SUYOG HERELE.E, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE BY KOLLEGAL TOWN POLICE REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶14

SRI. S. LINGARAJU S/O SRI. KYATHANA SIDDAIAH, AGED MAJOR, G P MALLAPPA PURA, BENGALURU ROAD, KOLLEGAL TOWN-571440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1;

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.25.4.2017 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.391/2017 (PCR NO.2/2012) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KOLLEGAL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 427 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, VIDE ANNEX-A.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner who is accused No.4 has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.391/2017 (PCR.No.2/2012) on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Kollegal, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

¶25

In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that he was working as incharge Commissioner

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

of Kollegal City Municipal Council ('CMC' for short). Since there was complaint regarding unauthorized occupation of certain lands and nuisance created by respondent No.2, he took steps to vacate the premises and cleared the nuisance. However, respondent No.2 choose to file a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 323, 341, 425, 352, 504, 506B r/w Section 149 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the same for investigation to the concerned police. After conducting the detailed investigation, the concerned police filed 'B' report. However, on the basis of protest petition filed by respondent No.2, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance.

¶30

The initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and without any jurisdiction. Petitioner is a public servant. No ingredients of the offences are made out. The civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal proceedings. The

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the

¶35

process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶36

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶37

petitioner has relied upon by the following decisions

¶38

(i) D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain ( D.Devaraja )¹ .

¶39

(ii) Manjeshwara and Ors Vs. Dharme Gowda ( Manjeshwara )² .

¶40

On the other hand learned High Court

¶41

Government Pleader submits that there is delay in filing the complaint. He would further submit that complainant and his siblings have purchased land in Sy.No.591/C measuring 0.18 cents and they got it converted for non-agriculture purpose. In the said property, complainant has got 60 x 83.5 feet to his share. In the said extent he has constructed

¶42

house and living there in. About 30 years back, CMC Kollegal has formed sites in Sy.Nos.588 and 589 and distributed to

¶43

1 (2020) 7 SCC 695

¶44

2 W.P.No.14238/2020 Dt: 07.01.2022

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

homeless people. Abutting the property of complainant is the Bengaluru – Kollegal Main Road.

¶49

In respect of the said property, complainant has

¶50

filed suit in O.S.No.185/2012 against CMC and it is pending consideration. However, accused persons used to instigate the residence and with their connivance, on 16.07.2012 in between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m, the accused persons demolished

¶51

the construction made by the complainant and destroyed valuable timber stored for construction purposes. When complainant tried to prevent them, he was assaulted. No road has passed through the site of complainant. They acted

¶52

in a high handled manner and his property is destroyed.

¶53

In this regard, the complainant filed private

¶54

complaint. It was referred to the Dy.SP for investigation and

¶55

he has filed B report. Considering the objections filed by the complainant, the trial Court has taken cognizance against accuse Nos.4 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

427 r/w 34 IPC. There is prima facie material to proceed

¶60

against the petitioner and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶61

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶62

Undisputedly petitioner who is as accused No.4 is a public servant. At the time of incident, he was the in charge commissioner of CMC Kollegal. From the perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the residents of the area surrounding the property allegedly belong to complainant were complaining that he has blocked the road. It is alleged that the accused persons high handedly removed the construction made by the complainant and assaulted him and others.

¶63

At the out set it is relevant to note that the complainant has not filed any affidavit supporting the complaint. There are also no averments in the complaint as to whether complainant tried to file a first information with the concerned police and on their failure, whether he has

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

approached the higher police officers with regard to the said incident and filed complaint with them. The incident took place on 16.07.2012, but the complaint came to be filed on 14.08.2012. These aspects are not considered by the trial

¶67

Court. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint.

¶68

In fact, the trial Court had referred the complaint to the Dy.SP for investigation. He has filed 'B' report stating that the demolition drive taken by the office of CMC Kollegal

¶69

to remove the encroachment made on the road and no offence is made out against the accused persons, including the petitioner. The impugned order reveal that complainant has filed objections to the same. Thereafter, the trial Court has referred the complaint to the Assistant Commissioner to make further enquiry and submit report. It appears the Assistant Commissioner has filed report. In support of the protest petition, the complainant has not led any evidence. On the basis of complaint and report of the Assistant Commissioner, the trial Court has taken cognizance against

¶70

8 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

the accused persons including the petitioner for the offence

¶74

punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 IPC.

¶75

Admittedly, complainant has filed suit in O.S.No.185/2012 in respect of the property in question.

¶76

Unless and until the rights of the parties is decided in the civil suit, it is not advisable to proceed against the petitioner, who is the public servant and the incident has taken place when in discharge of his duties, he has removed the alleged encroachment. Admittedly, the complainant has not secured sanction to prosecute the petitioner and other accused. The dispute with regard to the property in question is a civil in nature. In fact, in the impugned order itself, the trial Court has discussed in detail the fact that the dispute is required to be decided in civil suit and that there are no material to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 are directly involved in the incident.

¶77

On the basis of a letter dated 08.01.2013 written by the Municipality to CPI stating that the

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

encroachment has been removed in the presence of accused Nos.4 to 6, including the petitioner, the trial Court has taken cognizance against them for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 IPC. Unless and until the complainant establish his ownership over the property question in the civil suit, it cannot be held that the removal of the encroachment by the officials of the CMC would amount to an offence.

¶82

In the impugned order, the trial Court has not accepted the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the other offences and only on the basis of this letter, it has taken cognizance against accused Nos.4 to 6. In

¶83

the fact and circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶86

10 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:23636 WP No. 45075 of 2017

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.391/2017 (PCR.No.2/2012) on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.

¶90

(iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶91

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶92

RR

¶93

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri L Manjunathaswamy v. the State by Kollegal Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri L Manjunathaswamy v. the State by Kollegal Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R T Mahalakshmi Vs Sri H D Muddaiah

Mr.M.Devaraj Vs Sri.Jothi Anand

Sri Shah Sanjay Vs the State of Karnataka

Nanjundaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr P Musthafa Vs the State of Karnataka

D Suresh Babu Vs State of Karnataka