Sri Channabasava Deshikendra ... vs State By
2021 Latest Caselaw 6204 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION N O.538 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Sri Channab asava Deshikendra Swamiji,
Aged about 60 years,
Matadhip athi,
Bettadapura Mutt,
Periyapatna Taluk,
Mysuru District-571102.
                                              ...Petitioner
(By Sri K.A.Prakash, Advocate)

AND:

1.    State by Sidd apura Police Station,
      Sidd apura, Virajpet Taluk,
      Kodagu District-571253
      Represented by the
      Special Pub lic Prosecutor,

2.    Mr. C.M.Chinnap pa,
      S/o Late Muthap pa,
      Aged about 64 years,
      R/at Hoddur, Hod dur Post,
      Murnad Hobli, Madikeri Taluk,
      Kodagu District-571252.

      Now his R/at Hosuru,
      Bettig ere Villag e, Virajp et (T),
      Kodagu District-571252.
                                            ...Respondents

(By Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP for R1; R2-served)
                                  :: 2 ::



     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., p raying to q uash the entire p roceedings in
C.C.No.330/2008 on the file of the Learned Civil Judge
and JMFC at Virajpet (Annexure-A).

      This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court made the following:

                                ORDER

      The        petitioner        is        accused        no.1      in

C.C.No.330/2008 on the file of JMFC, Virajpet.                       He

is a Mathadhipathi. He has sought quashing of the

said proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri.K.A.Prakash, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri. B.J.Rohit, Government

Pleader for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 has

not entered appearance in spite of service of

notice.

3. In the charge sheet filed against the

petitioner and other accused, it is stated that

about 11.00 am on 30.12.2007, accused 1 to 25

trespassed into the house where the second

respondent and her mother were living and then :: 3 ::

wrongfully confined the mother proclaiming that

the house belonged to the first accused and that

nobody had any right on it.

4. But as argued by the petitioner's counsel,

on 11.2.1993, the Land Tribunal, Virajpet granted

occupancy rights to him in respect of 197 acres of

land in Sy.Nos.9,10,12 and 13. Thereafter the

petitioner got the revenue records mutated to his

name and then applied to the Tahasildar under

section 41 of the Land Reforms Act for delivery of

possession of the said land to him. On 28.8.2004,

the Tahasildar passed an order directing

respondent no.2 to hand over possession. The

second respondent preferred an appeal to this

court challenging the order dated 11.2.1993

passed by the Land Tribunal and the order dated

28.8.2004 passed by Tahasildar. Ultimately the

matter reached the Supreme Court and by its

order dated 6.5.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4150 to :: 4 ::

4163 of 2013 confirmed the jurisdiction of the

Tahasildar to hand over possession and then

remanded the matter to Tahasildar to conduct

fresh proceedings. Ultimately Tahasildar passed

an order 26.10.13 directing the second respondent

to hand over the possession and this order was

also confirmed by the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by

referring to all the above proceedings submitted

that when the possession of the land was handed

over to the petitioner, the allegation that he and

other accused trespassed into the house and

threatened the second respondent's mother by

wrongfully confining her inside the house is totally

unfounded. A false case has been foisted against

the petitioner who is a Mathadhipathi. In this view

the criminal proceeding against the petitioner has

to be quashed.

:: 5 ::

6. It is true that all the documents that the

petitioner has produced show an order in favour of

the petitioner in respect of certain extent of

agricultural land in Sy.No.197. The Supreme

Court has also observed in its judgment in Civil

Appeal 4150-4163 of 2013 that the possession of

the second respondent after grant of occupancy

right is unauthorized. But in para 6 of the

judgment, there is a reference to the order passed

by this court in W.P.No.36175/2004 and 36529-

32/2004, according to which the first order of the

Tahasildar directing second respondent to deliver

possession of the property was set aside and it

was ordered that the property must be re-

delivered to the respondent. In the subsequent

round of litigation, ultimately the Tahasildar

passed an order on 26.10.2013 for delivery of

possession to the petitioner. That means, an

inference may be drawn that when the alleged :: 6 ::

incident took place on 30.12.2007, probably the

possession was with the second respondent.

7. The investigating officer has collected

ample materials in regard to happening of the

incident on 30.12.2007. The proceeding is of the

year 2008. The petitioner has approached this

court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the year 2020.

Notwithstanding all the orders referred to by the

petitioner's counsel, if really an incident of crime

had taken place on 30.12.2007, the petitioner has

to face trial. It is not understandable as to why

the petitioner waited for such a long time to

question the proceeding. Since the petitioner has

to face trial I do not find any good ground to

admit this petition and therefore it is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

sd