Karnataka High Court
Smt. Karibasamma W/O. Balappa ... vs Smt. Annapoornamma W/O. Chinappa ... on 28 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101489/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101963/2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.101489/2017
BETWEEN
1. SMT. KARIBASAMMA W/O. BALAPPA VIJAPUR,
C/O. FAKIRAPPA CHANABASAPPA SAVANUR,
AGED ABOUT: 92 YEARS, OCC:NIL.
2. FAKIRAPPA S/O CHANABASAPPA SAVANUR,
AGE:76 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND RETIRED TEACHER,
3. ANASAVVA W/O FAKIRAPPA SAVANUR,
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
4. SHANTAVVA W/O BASAPPA HORATTI
AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O DANDIKOPPA,
TQ AND DIST:DHARWAD
5. RENUKA D/O FAKIRAPPA SAVANUR,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD AND ADVOCATE.
6. NAGARAJ @ RAJ S/O. FAKIRAPPA SAVANUR,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE.
2
7. CHANABASAPPA BASAPPA HORATTI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DANDIKOPPA TQ:DHARWAD.
8. CHINAPPA BALAPPA VIJAPUR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
PETITIONER NO. 1,2,3,5,6 AND 8 ARE
RESIDENTS OF KALASA VILLAGE
TQ:KUNDAGOL, DISTRICT:DHARWAD
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. ANNAPOORANAMMA W/O. CHINAPPA VIJAPUR,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:SANUNSHI VILLAGE, TQ:KUNDAGOL,
DIST:DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGRDDI, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS PETITION AND BE FURTHER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
15TH JUNE 2017 PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
No.83/2016 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, AND FURTHER O QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND J M F C, KUNDGOL IN C C
No.146/2016 THERE BY ISSUED SUMMONS TO THOSE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECION417, 323,447,506,R/W 149 VID ITS ORDER DATED
22.07.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.101963/2017
BETWEEN
ANNAPOORNAMMA W/O CINNAPPA VIJAPUR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAUNSHI VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ARAVIND C. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SANGAYYA B. HIREMATH,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: DANESHWAR BUILDING,
BEHIND COURT COMPOUND,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SURESH P.HUDEDAGRDDI, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2017, PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT
HUBBALLI, IN CRL.R.P.No.83/2016 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER
DATED 22.07.2016, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND
JMFC, KUNDAGOL, IN P.C.No.15/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THECOURTMADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
1. Since both the petitions arise out of the very
same proceeding, therefore these petitions are taken
up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. Respondent in criminal petition 101489 of 2017
and petitioner in Crl.P.No.101963 of 2017 is the
complainant and petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 in criminal
petition No.101489 of 2017 and respondents in
criminal petition No.101963 of 2017 are the accused.
3. Petitioner in Crl.P.No.101963/2017 filed a
private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging
that accused Nos.2 to 9 are the close relatives. The
accused No. 1 is the advocate. The accused Nos. 10
to 24 are said to be the family members of the
accused Nos. 2. The complainant is the wife of
accused No.9 and daughter-in-law of accused No.2.
The accused Nos. 2 to 9 have indulged in creating
false document in respect of self acquired properties
owned by the father in law of complainant by name
Balappa Vijapur. There are civil disputes pending
between the parties in O.S.Nos.121/2015, 56/2015
before Senior Civil Judge Court, Kundgol and
proceedings in C.C.No.248/2015 is also pending
between the parties.
4. On the basis of the registered Will dated
2.12.2008, the complainant and her daughters are in
actual possession and enjoyment of agricultural
properties of the deceased Balappa. The accused Nos.
2 to 9, not tolerating the factum of the complainant
and her daughters cultivating the said land, filed an
application for appointment of a court receiver and
one G.B. Soratur, Advocate was appointed as Court
receiver to conduct the auction of suit properties on
lease and the notice in this regard was published in
the Sanyukta Karnataka News paper. On 14.4.2016,
when the Court receiver came to Saunshi village, the
complainant requested him not to conduct the
auction. On 23.4.2016, accused Nos.10 to 24 at the
instigation of accused Nos. 2 to 9 came to the suit
property and began to plough the land and as a
consequence, a quarrel took place and the
complainant recorded the same in her mobile. Upon
seeing her recording the incident, accused fled away
threatening the complainant that after obtaining
court's order tomorrow, they would kill her. The
Complainant rushed to the police station, but the
Police refused to lodge FIR. Hence, filed a private
complaint.
5. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn
statement of the complainant and took cognizance of
the offences punishable under sections 417, 323,
447, 506 R/w. Section 149 of IPC and issued
summons to the accused Nos. 1 to 9. Accused Nos. 1
to 9 filed a revision petition challenging the order
passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance
of the offences alleged against accused Nos. 1 to 9.
The learned Magistrate by order dated 15/6/2017
exonerated the first accused however dismissed the
revision petition against the other accused and
confirmed the order taking cognizance of offence
alleged against the other accused. Taking exception
to the same, the accused No. 2 to 9 have filed
criminal petition No. 101489 of 2017 and the
complainant taking exception to the order passed by
the revisional court exonerating the accused No.1,
has filed criminal petition No. 101963 of 2017.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos.
2 to 8 submits that the allegation made in the
complaint is purely civil in nature however the
complainant to harass the accused Nos. 2 to 8 has
filed the complaint by giving texture of criminal
nature and the same is not sustainable in law. He
further submits that the complainant having not
complied with the requirements of Sections 154(1)
and 154(3) of Cr.P.C has filed the complaint which is
not maintainable in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava
& Anr. V/s State of U.P.& Ors reported in (2015) 6
SCC 287. He further submits that in the absence of
any specific allegation against the accused No.1, the
learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned
order setting aside the order of taking cognizance
against the accused No.1. Hence, he prays to set
aside the order passed by the revisional Court as well
the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking
cognisance of the offences alleged against the
accused Nos. 2 to 9.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the complainant submits that the allegations made
in the complaint clearly discloses the commission of
the alleged offences by the accused.Hence, he
submits that the impugned order passed by the
revisional court requires to be set aside and the order
passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of
the offences against accused Nos. 1 to 9 requires to
be confirmed.
8. I have considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
9. The accused as well as the complainant are the
close relatives and multiple suits are pending between
them with regard to property in disputes in
O.S.No.105/2016 filed by the accused No. 2 and 4.
The trial court had appointed the court commissioner
so as to auction the suit property therein on lease.
However, the allegations against accused Nos. 1 to 9
are that they illegally trespassed into the property in
question and assaulted the complainant. Further, O.S.
No. 105/2016 filed by the accused Nos. 2 and 4 was
decreed and the counter claim filed by the
complainant came to be dismissed by the judgment
dated 5th March 2021 which is the subject matter of
the appeal filed by the complainant.
10. Admittedly, the property in question is the
subject matter of the multiple suits pending between
the parties. The allegations made in the complaint
clearly disclose that it is purely civil in nature however
criminal texture is given so as to harass and
pressurize the petitioners-accused.
11. The commission of offences alleged against the
accused are cognizable and as such the complainant
ought to have registered the complaint before the
jurisdictional police and in case of refusal to register
the complaint, the complainant was required to be
approach the higher officer for registering the
complaint. However the complainant has not filed an
affidavit to the effect that the complainant has
complied with the requirement under sections 154(1)
and 154(3) of Cr.P.C and as such complaint is not
maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava supra.
Accordingly, I pass the following
ORDER
12.
i) Criminal petition No. 101487/2017 is allowed
and the impugned proceedings initiated against
the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 9 in
C.C.No.146 of 2016 pending on the file of the
Civil Judge & JMFC, Kundagol is hereby quashed.
ii) Criminal petition No. 101963/2017 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vb/-
