Rekha Prabhakar Vs State of Karnataka

SHIVAKUMAR S/O NAGARAJU S.K., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC-EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM R/A NO.12/1, 4TH CROSS, NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL, S R LAYOUT, BONEMILL SIDEDAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU CITY-560 050

¶32

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI.SHIVAJI H. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.8505/2021 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 457 OF CRPC AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER GRANTING INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE ARTICLES SEIZED IN PF.NO.41/2021 i.e LPG CYLINDER, REGULATOR AND GAS STOVE IN CR.NO.5/2020 OF ASHOKPURAM P.S., MYSURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU N C.C.NO.8505/2021 IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER.

¶34

IN CRL.P NO. 9706/2022

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

REKHA PRABHAKAR W/O M.S.PRABHAKAR AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/AT DOOR NO.23 NEW NO.CH-31

¶37

3 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

4^TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR MYSORE-570 014 PRESENTLY R/AT DOR NO.1634 6^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, II STAGE, MYSORE-570 013

¶41

1.1. M S PRABHAKAR

¶42

DOOR NO.1634, 5TH CROSS,

¶43

6^TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, MYSURU - 570 017

¶44

1.2. M.P.SRICHARAN

¶45

DOOR NO.1634, 5TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, MYSURU - 570 017

¶46

1.3. M.P.SRIRANJAN DOOR NO.1634, 5TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, MYSURU - 570 017

¶47

...PETITIONERS

¶48

(BY SRI.M.S.PRABHAKAR, P1- PARTY-IN-PERSON SMT.ARCHANA K.M., AMICUS CURIAE FOR P1 (B& C) RI) AND:

¶49

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK PURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU -570 001. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGLAURU-560 001)

¶50

SHIVAKUMAR S/O NAGARAJU S.K AGED 51 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM R/AT NO.12/1, 4TH CRSS, NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL, S.R.LAYOOUT, BONEMILL SIDEDAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU CITY-560 073.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BYSRI.RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1

¶53

4 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

SRI.SHIVAJI H. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶57

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.8505/2021 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY STHE PETITIONER U/S 451 OF CRPC AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER GRANTING INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE ARTICLES SEIZED IN PF.NO.49/2020 AT SL.NO.3 AND 4 SEIZED IN CR.NO.5/2020 OF ASHOKPURAM P.S., MYSURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU I C.C.NO.8505/2021 IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER.

¶58

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶60

ORAL COMMON ORDER

¶61

The original petitioner being the informant filed these petitions impugning the orders dated 11.08.2022, passed in CC No.8505/2021 by the learned V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore (for short 'the Trial Court'), on the applications filed under Sections 457 of Cr.PC seeking for release of LPG cylinder with stove and the regulator, and under Section 451 of Cr.PC seeking the interim custody of the keys, which were seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation, and rejecting the applications.

¶62

Heard Sri.M.S.Prabhakar, party in person as petitioner No.1(a), Smt. Archana K.M., Amicus Curiae for petitioner No.1 (B and C) and Sri. Rangaswamy R, learned High

¶63

5 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Shivaji H Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶67

In view of the rival contentions urged by both the

¶68

parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶69

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the orders dated 11.08.2022 filed under Section 457 of Cr.PC and Section 451 of Cr.PC ?"

¶70

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for

¶71

the following:

¶72

REASONS

¶73

Originally, the petitioner Rekha Prabhakar filed the first information with the Ashokpuram police station against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 448 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The investigation was undertaken. During investigation, the accused have produced a bunch of keys, a LPG gas cylinder, LPG stove and a regulator which were seized under the seizure memo.

¶74

6 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

The complainant has filed the applications before

¶78

the Trial Court for the interim custody of these articles, which were seized by the police. In the meantime, accused No.1, who is respondent No.2 herein had field the similar application seeking interim custody of those articles. The Trial Court considered the applications and dismissed all the applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the informant had preferred these petitions.

¶79

During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner had died and now she is represented by her husband-petitioner No.1(A) and two children petitioner No.1(B) and petitioner No.1(C).

¶80

The undisputed facts of the case are that, a complaint came to be filed by the original complainant against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 448 R/w Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed under Sections 380, 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and the matter is now pending in CC No.8505/2021.

¶81

7 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

During the investigation, respondent No.2 being

¶85

accused No.1 produced the LPG gas cylinder, LPG stove and its regulator before the Investigating Officer as it is alleged that those movables were stolen by him from the house in question. The said articles were seized under seizure mahazar. The bunch of keys said to be pertaining to the house in dispute were also produced by accused No.1/respondent No.2 and sized by the police. Now four different applications were filed in two sets, one by the original complainant and other by accused No.1. Therefore, there is rival claim by accused No.1 and the original complainant with regard to the seized articles.

¶86

The original complainant is said to be the niece of one S.K.Nagaraju, who is none other than the father of accused No.1. The claim of the complainant is that, her uncle S.K.Nagaraju had executed a Will in her favour and by virtue of the Will, she was in possession and enjoyment of the house in question. It is her further contention that on 05.11.2019, the accused have illegally trespassed into the house by breaking open the lock and put the lock belonging to them. Thereby, they have committed the offence.

¶87

8 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

Per contra , it is the contention of respondent No.2

¶91

that the property belongs to his father S.K.Nagaraju, who left behind the house in question, the LPG gas connection stands in his name and since there was a criminal complaint, those articles were produced by him before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is clear that there was rival claim in respect of the movable properties seized by the police during investigation under the seizure memo.

¶92

The petitioners contend that they have filed P and SC No.54/2022 seeking issuance of probate in respect of the Will dated 24.04.2019 said to be executed by S.K.Nagaraju, the father of accused No.1 and uncle of the complainant. The same is now pending in OS.No.6/2024 before the Civil Court. When there is rival claim regarding a house property and the movables in question which were produced by accused No.1, were seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation under the seizure mahazar, it is not proper for this Court or for Trial Court, for that matter, to determine the rights of the parties as to who is the owner, who is entitled for the articles and handover the movables in favour of either parties.

¶93

9 -

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:4171 CRL.P No. 11641 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 9706 of 2022

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

The materials on record disclose that, movables in question were produced by accused No.1 before the Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner herein and after her death, her legal representatives are claiming right over the same on the basis of Will, genuiness of which is pending consideration in OS.No.6/2014. Under such circumstances, the petitioner/s are not entitled for interim custody of the articles. The Trial Court can consider the rights of the parties for custody of the articles, which were seized by the Investigating Officer after conclusion of the trial.

¶97

I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the materials on record and formed an opinion that the original subscription voucher and original domestic consumer card pertaining to the LPG gas connection stand in the name of Sri.S.K.Nagaraju, the father of accused No.1. It has also noticed that the said connection is transferred recently in the name of accused No.1. The seized articles were produced by accused No.1 before the Investigating Officer. Since there is rival claim regarding those articles, the Court dismissed the application holding that both

¶98