Vaterira Veeraj vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5408 Kant

                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1300 OF 2014
                    CONNECTED WITH
            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1299 OF 2014
            CRIMINAL PETITION No.3345 OF 2017

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1300 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1 . VATERIRA VEERAJ @ APPACHU
    S/O AIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

2 . MANU
    S/O AIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
    C/O V A APPACHU

   BOTH ARE R/AT ATHUR VILLAGE
   PONNAMPET
   VIRAJPT TALUK
   KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
                                          ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    PONNAMPET POLICE
    KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

2 . C T NANAIAH
    S/O THAMMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                             2


   ALIGATU VILLAGE & POST
   VIRAJPET TALUK
   KODAGU DISTRICT
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
1.10.2012 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ALSO THE FIR
IN CR. NO.170/2012 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE WHICH IS
NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.1269/2013 ON THE FILE OF C.J.
(JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., PONNAMPET.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1299 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1 . V.A. APPACHU @ VEERAJ
    S/O AIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

2 . V A PONNAPPA @ VINIL
    S/O AIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

   BOTH ARE R/AT HALLIGAL
   VILLAGE
   PONNAMPET
   VIRAJPET TALUK
   KODAGU DISTRICT
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REP BY PONNAMPET POLICE
    PONNAMPET
    VIRAJPET TALUK
    KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
                              3


2 . C T NANAIAH
    S/O LATE THAMMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
    HALLIGAL VILLAGE
    PONNAMPET
    VIRAJPET TALUK
    KODAGU DISTRICT
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
12.1.2012 MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN CR. NO.8/2012 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.7/2014 BEFORE THE C.J. (JR. DN.)
AND J.M.F.C., PONNAMPET AND TO QUASH ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED THEREAFTER.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3345 OF 2017

BETWEEN

V A VEERAJ
S/O AIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT ATHUR VILLAGE,
PONNAMPET, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    BY PONNAMPET POLICE,
    PONNAMPET,
    VIRAJPET TALUK,
    KODAGU DISTRICT.

2 . C T NANAIAH
    S/O.THIMMAIAH,
    AGED 63 YEARS,
                                4


   R/AT.HALLIGATTU VILLAGE &
   POST,
   VIRAJPET TALUK,
   KODAGU DISTRICT.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.999/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn)
AND JMFC, PONNAMPET REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE
CR.NO.9/2013 REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427,447,34
OF IPC.

      THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Crl.P.No.1300/2014, Crl.P.No.1299/2014 and

Crl.P.No.3345/2017 are filed by the petitioners under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in respect of Crime Nos.170/2012 for the

offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 of

IPC, in Crime No.8/2012 for the offences punishable under

Sections 427, 379, 447 of IPC and in Crime No.9/2013 for

the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with

Section 34 of IPC filed by respondent No.2 before the

Ponnampet Police Station, Kodagu.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent

No.2 in all the cases.

3. The complainant-respondent No.2 is same in

all three cases and apart from other petitioners, petitioner

No.1 is accused No.1 in all three cases, hence, taken

together for common disposal.

4. In Crl.P.No.1300/2014, respondent No.2 has

filed a complaint to the Ponnampet Police Station, Kodaga

on 02.10.2012 which was registered in Crime No.170/2012

alleging that he is having property where the petitioner

No.1 is also having adjacent property who is said to be

running Bar and Restaurant in his property where

respondent No.2 said to be let out the space for the

tenants. Petitioners trespassed into the property of the

respondent on 29.09.2012, caused damages by removing

the fencing and caused loss to the complainant, hence,

prayed for taking action. The Police after registering the

case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet

for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and

379 of IPC which is under challenge.

5. In Crl.P.No.1299/2014, where the same

complainant filed previous complaint before the Police on

12.01.2012 on the similar allegation that the petitioners

trespassed the property of the respondent on 05.01.2012,

caused damages of Rs.30,000/- and also stolen the

fencing. After registering the FIR in Crime No.8/2012, the

Police investigated the matter and filed 'B' report stating

that there is a civil dispute pending before the Civil Court

and civil dispute between the parties. Subsequently, the

Magistrate is said to be taken cognizance against the

petitioners and hence, they are before this Court.

6. Crl.P.No.3345/2017 is filed by the same

respondent No.2 on 17.01.2013 which is registered in

Crime No.9/2013 where again the complainant has alleged

that on 14.01.2013, again the petitioner and others

trespassed his property, abused in filthy language and

caused damage to the property. The Police after

investigation, filed 'B' report and the Magistrate is said to

be taken cognizance against the petitioner which is under

challenge.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that there is a civil dispute between the

petitioner-V.A.Veeraj and respondent No.2. Both are

neighbours. Respondent No.2 has filed civil suit in

O.S.No.54/2012 seeking declaration and possession which

clearly shows that respondent is not in possession of the

property and the petitioner also filed a suit against the

respondent for injunction which is also pending before the

Civil Court. The matter is purely civil in nature arising out

of the civil dispute. Therefore, conducting the criminal

case, investigating the proceedings by the Police is abuse

of process of law and therefore, prayed for quashing the

same.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

has contended that the respondent No.2 is the owner of

the property and he is also filed a suit for declaring

injunction, but he is in possession of the property. The

fencing was removed by the petitioner by trespassing the

property of the respondent, encroaching the same and

causing damages, abusing in filthy language will attract

criminal case. In Crl.P.No.1300/2014 in respect of Crime

No.170/2012, the Police investigated the matter and filed

the charge-sheet and petitioner required to face the trial

and other two cases were also registered after recording

the sworn statement which clearly goes to show that the

petitioners has trespassed the property of the respondent

and they have to undergo trial. Merely, the civil suit is

filed, that itself is not a ground for quashing the criminal

proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

9. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of

the records, admittedly, respondent No.2 filed the first

complaint on 12.01.2012 which was registered in Crime

No.8/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 427,

379, 447 of IPC for trespass, theft of fencing wire and

causing loss of Rs.30,000/-. However, the same

respondent-complainant has filed another complaint on

02.10.2012 which is registered in Crime No.170/2012 and

third complaint on 17.01.2013 where the alleged offences

again took place on 14.01.2013 for the similar offences

under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC. On

perusal of the records, it is an admitted fact that

respondent No.2 has filed O.S.No.54/2012 for declaration

of 'B' Schedule property said to be belongs to the

respondent and seeking possession. Though the civil suit is

still pending for consideration, the petitioner also filed a

suit for bare injunction where it is filed by the father of

petitioner No.1 for injunction where there is no injunction

granted in favour of the petitioner whereas, the injunction

was granted in favour of the respondent by Civil Court in

O.S.No.54/2012. It appears that there is a boundary

dispute between petitioner and respondent No.2. It is also

brought to the notice that one Tahsildar was appointed for

surveying the property on the dispute between the

respondent and one Bank, where the Tahsildar said to

have reported that respondent No.2 encroached the

property of the petitioner where learned counsel for the

respondent submits that there is a difference in

handwriting and that report cannot be acceptable. Of

course, this is the matter of consideration before the Civil

Court whether the respondent is the owner of the

property, whether he is entitled for declaration and

possession. However, it is a boundary dispute between

the parties. Therefore, until the civil court decides,

whether the property belongs to the respondent and

declaration of the title of respondent, till then, it cannot be

said that the respondent is the owner and the petitioner

trespassed the property of the respondent in order to

attract Section 447 of IPC. However, it seems from the

records and complaint that the petitioner entered into the

premises, removed the fencing and caused damages of

more than Rs.30,000/- as per complaint dated 12.01.2012

in Crime No.8/2012 and where the Police have already

filed the charge-sheet in Crime No.170/2012 in respect of

the incident dated 29.09.2012. Of course, these are the

offences regularly committed and three consecutive

complaints filed by the respondent by one C.T. Nanaiah,

even otherwise, a civil suit is pending where the Police

have filed 'B' report in two cases i.e. in Crime Nos.8/12

and 9/13. However, the charge-sheet is filed in Crime

No.170/2012. The alleged offences under Sections 447,

427, 504 are made out in the said case for causing

damages to the tune of more than Rs.30,000/- in second

case and Rs.1,00,000/- in third case. There is averment

made out against the petitioners in respect of abusing in

filthy language and criminal intimidation to the

complainant to attract Section 506 of IPC. However,

looking to the dates of the offence i.e. 05.01.2012,

29.09.2012 and 14.01.2013 and looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, there are two incidents

occurred within one year as similar offences complained on

the petitioners but the cause of action arose in first case

itself on 05.01.2012 for the offences punishable under

Sections 427, 447, 379 and other offences. Therefore,

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, though

it is civil in nature, but causing damages, abusing in filthy

language, threatening the complainant in dire

consequences which attracts criminality. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has also held in the unreported judgment

in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The

State of Maharashtra in Crl.A.No.255/2019 dated

12.02.2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another

judgment in the case of Vijayander Kumar & Ors vs.

State Of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2014(3) SCC

389, dated 11.02.2014 in Crl.A.No.1297/2004, has

held that the court required to test whether the criminal

offence is made out or not, even though the dispute is civil

in nature. Though the dispute is civil in nature, but the

petitioner taking the law in his hands, causing damages

and committing the offences all attracts IPC cases.

Therefore, the matter requires for conducting trial by the

Magistrate in accordance with law. Though the criminal

case is arising out of the civil dispute, but, it cannot be

said that they have trespassed or not. However, the

question of trespass shall be considered by the Magistrate

while conducting the full-fledged trial after examining the

witnesses. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot

interfere with the proceedings and quash the same as

there is no grounds made out by the petitioners. Hence, I

pass the following

ORDER

Accordingly, all the three petitions are dismissed.

However, the trial Court is directed to conduct two

cases as joint trial independently in respect of Crime

No.9/13 and jointly in respect of Crime Nos.8/12 and

170/12 as one trial as both the cases are committed within

one year of duration as per Section 219 of Cr.P.C.

The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the

matter as early as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE GBB