Sri H R Mallikarjuna vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 167 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1626/2017
BETWEEN:

1.      SRI H.R. MALLIKARJUNA
        AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
        S/O LATE H.B. REDDAPPA
2.      SRI H.M. OM PRASHANTH
        AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
        S/O SRI H.R. MALLIKARJUNA
3.      SRI H.M. MANUP
        AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
        S/O SRI H.R. MALLIKARJUNA
        ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF THE PREMISES
        BEARING NO.328, 14TH CROSS
        2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
        BANGALORE-560 004.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
       SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION
       BANGALORE
       REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU-560 001.
                                2



2.   SRI H.R. NAGARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     S/O SRI H.B. RAJENDRA
     RESIDENT OF THE PREMISES
     BEARING NO.1573, 2ND CROSS
     NAGAPPA BLOCK, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURAM
     BANGALORE-560 021.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
    SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CRIME NO.279/2016 REGISTERED AT SIDDAPUR
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES WHICH ARE
MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 427, 144, 143, 147, 148, 149,
380, 392, 448, 324, 506B OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE II ACMM, BANGALORE.
     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The 2nd respondent lodged a FIR alleging that the

petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 along with 200 others by

forming an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons

trespassed into the subject property belonging to the 2nd

respondent and damaged the movables belonging to the 2nd

respondent and also assaulted and snatched the gold chain from

the mother of the 2nd respondent when she was returning from

morning walk. The police registered the FIR for the offences

punishable under Sections 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 380,

392, 448, 324, 506(B) of IPC. Taking exception to the same,

the accused Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court.

2. Sri C V Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 submits that the FIR was

lodged as an after thought only to overcome the order passed by

the jurisdictional Civil Court vacating the order of temporary

injunction operating against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4

in respect of the subject property. He further submits that the

dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which is

evident from the suit in OS No.1319/2015 filed by the 2nd

respondent against the accused Nos.2 to 4 for perpetual and

mandatory injunction to put them in possession in respect of the

subject property. He further submits that the suit for declaration

filed by the 2nd respondent in respect of the subject property

has also been dismissed.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the 1st respondent - State submits that the

allegation made in the FIR, prima facie, discloses the

commission of offence alleged against the petitioners - accused

Nos.2 to 4 and veracity of the allegation cannot be gone into, at

this stage and the same requires to be investigated and sought

for dismissal of the petition.

4. I have examined the submissions of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

5. It is undisputed that the 2nd respondent had filed a

suit in OS No.1319/2015 and an order of temporary injunction

was operating against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4. The

said order of temporary injunction was vacated by the Trial

Court on 30.10.2016. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent lodged

the FIR, which clearly implies that the FIR was lodged with an

ulterior motive to overcome the order passed by the Trial Court

vacating the order of temporary injunction granted against the

petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4.

6. The suit in OS No.1319/2015 has also been

dismissed by the Trial Court by the judgment and decree dated

29.3.2022, which indicates that the 2nd respondent was not in

possession of the subject property. The 2nd respondent had

also filed P.Mis.No.2/2016 seeking for temporary injunction and

the said petition was dismissed by the jurisdictional Court on

5.4.2022, which clearly implies that the dispute between the

parties is purely civil in nature and the 2nd respondent was not

in possession of the subject property, however, given criminal

texture. Hence, the continuation of investigation against the

petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 will be an abuse of process of

law, since the possibilities of police filing the charge sheet is

remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.279/2016 registered

by the Siddapur Police Station, Bangalore, inosfar as it relates to

petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkm