Smt. Kamalamma vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 4683 Kant

                               1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2023

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4923 OF 2021
BETWEEN

1 . SMT. KAMALAMMA
    AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
    W/O. LATE. SRI. H. THIPPA REDDY,

2 . SRI. T. MURALIDHARA
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
    S/O. LATE. SRI. H. THIPPA REDDY,

3 . SMT. LATHA V
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
    W/O. SRI. T. MURALIDHARA,

4 . SRI. T VIJAY KUMAR
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
    S/O. SRI. T. MURALIDHARA,

5 . SMT. G K ANITHA
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
    W/O. SRI. T. VIJAY KUMAR

6 . SRI. T UMASHANKAR
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
    S/O. LATE. SRI. H. THIPPA REDDY,

7 . SMT. PRATHIBA
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
    W/O. SRI. T. UMASHANKAR

   ALL ARE R/AT NO. 24,
   SATHYA SAI NILAYAM,
                            2




   MAHALAKSHMI FARM,
   CHINNAPPANAHALLI,
   NEAR MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD,
   BENGALURU - 560 037.
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION,
    BENGALURU CITY,
    REPRESENTED BY THE
    STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
    BENGALURU - 560 001

2 . SMT. H G LAKSHMI
    W/O. SRI. DHANARAJ,
    4TH FLOOR, SEVEN HILLS,
    SATHISH NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
    TALACAUVERY LAYOUT,
    AMRUTHAHALLI,
    BENGALURU - 560 092
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ALONG WITH
 SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO a. QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.117/2021 LODGED
AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT POLICE INITIATED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.
                                  3




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.6.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1

to 7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in

Crime No.117/2021 registered by the Halasurgate police

station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B,

420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the

respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of respondent No.2-Lakshmi, the police

registered a case against the petitioners on 26.06.2021. It

is alleged in the complaint that the land in Sy.No.35

situated at Chinnappanahalli village Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk, measures 14 guntas and in order to

grab the said land, the accused created a false document

to grab 11 guntas of land which belongs to government

and they said to be received compensation from the

government for having acquired the land for the purpose

of metro rail project. It is further alleged that there is

Anjaneyaswamy temple in the said land which also belongs

to the Government. Earlier, BDA acquired 3 guntas of land

and in the remaining 11 guntas of land, the temple is

situated. The complainant-respondent No.2 came to know

that the said land has been acquired by KIADB for metro

rail project. It is alleged that the petitioners-accused

persons created the documents in the name of a Trust and

received compensation of more than Rs.4.00 crores,

thereby they cheated the government. Hence, prayed for

taking action. The police registered FIR, which is under

challenge in this criminal petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that the respondent has filed the false

complaint against the petitioners. The mother-in-law of

respondent No.2 is the sister of the husband of 1st

petitioner and her name is Jayamma. She filed a civil suit

for partition against Thippareddy and defeated him in the

legal battle. Even in the High Court, the first appeal came

to be dismissed and now, in order to trouble the family of

the petitioners, the said Jayamma through her daughter-

in-law filed this complaint. It is further contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that during the

acquisition proceedings, the respondent already raised

objection and therefore the KIADB appointed a retired

District Judge and obtained opinion, where it was stated

that the land belongs to the petitioners' family and they

paid the compensation amount to the petitioners' Trust.

The matter has attained finality. Now, respondent No.2

with an ulterior motive, has filed this complaint to harass

the petitioners and there is no substance in the complaint

to investigate the matter.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also

contended that the property in question was acquired by

the ancestor of the petitioners under the sale deed in the

year 1923 and subsequently, a Will has been executed.

The RTC extracts reveals the existence of the temple

where the husband of 1st petitioner used to perform pooja.

Therefore, prayed for allowing the petition and quash the

FIR.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

has contended that the property in question belongs to the

government and the old revenue records reveal that the

government is shown as owner of the said property. Even

other wise, the respondent's family filed a suit for partition

and in the said suit, this property was not mentioned as

the schedule property of the suit. It clearly reveals that

this property not at all belongs to the family of the

petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No.2

further contended that even though the temple is situated

in the government land, the property is acquired for the

public purpose and therefore, the compensation has to go

to the government. The petitioners are not entitled for

any compensation. The government officials, in collusion

with the petitioners, have released the compensation.

Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader also

objected the petition.

8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the parties, perused the records.

9. On perusal of the records, the allegation against

the petitioners in the complaint is that, the land in

question Sy.No.35 of Chinnappanahalli village belongs to

the government. The petitioners have received the

compensation for having acquired a portion of the said

land by KIADB for the purpose of metro rail project. From

the averments of this petition and the documents produced

by the petitioners including the judgment of this Court in

RFA No.1570/2019, one Jayamma, the mother-in-law of

respondent No.2 filed a suit for partition against the

husband of 1st petitioner-Thippareddy claiming to be his

sister. The original suit in O.S. No.1754/2006, filed by the

mother-in-law of respondent No.2 has been dismissed and

in the first appeal, the High Court has confirmed the

dismissal of the suit.

10. Of course, the property in question Sy. No.35 is

not mentioned in the schedule property. The said

Thippareddy claimed that there was partition between the

family members on 29.11.1971 and from the said date, he

is enjoying the said property. Ultimately, the partition

suit came to be dismissed and the High Court also upheld

the same on 05.03.2021 by upholding the dismissal of the

suit.

11. Admittedly, respondent No.2 filed a complaint to

the police on 27.05.2021 within two months of the

dismissal of the appeal and NCR was registered by the

police and they have not registered the FIR. Therefore,

the respondent filed one more complaint on 26.6.2021 and

the police registered the FIR.

12. The case of the petitioners is that, the land in

Sy.No.10 previously was measuring more than 20 acres

and there was partition between their family. The land in

Sy.No.10 had fallen to the share of one Shamanna Reddy

which was measuring 21 acre 34 guntas, which was

registered on 5.11.1955. Subsequently, the lands were

divided into pieces and the same was renumbered as

Sy.No.35 which was 14 guntas of land, where a Hanuman

Temple was situated. The said Shamanna said to be

executed a 'Will' in favour of the husband of the petitioner

No.1/ Thippareddy on 16.3.1978 and he was looking after

the said land, as well as used to perform the 'Pooja'.

Thereafter, in the year 2005 a Trust was formed for

performing 'Pooja' and development of the said temple. It

is also not in dispute that the trust deed was created under

the Indian Trust Act on 1.7.2005. The family members of

Thippareddy were trustees in the trust and it is also not in

dispute, 14 guntas were in their possession and they were

performing 'Pooja' and developed the said Hanuman

Temple for the public use. Subsequently, the KIADB

acquired a portion of land measuring 3 guntas for Metro

Rail Project, where the name of the trust has been

mentioned as owners of the property. Previously, a pillar

was erected for Railway Line, then at the request of the

petitioner's family, the Railway Authorities shifted the pillar

to some other place. It is also an admitted fact, the

compensation for acquiring the piece of land has been

given to the petitioners in the name of Hanuman Temple

Trust. Later, in view of the changing of the direction of

the Railway Line, the Trust belonging to the petitioners had

repaid Rs.45 lakhs of compensation to the KIADB. There

was an objection filed by the respondent side, therefore,

the KIADB appointed a retired District Judge for enquiry

and the said District Judge submitted a report that the land

belongs to the petitioner's family and accordingly, the

compensation was released in favour of the petitioners.

13. It is also not in dispute, the mother-in-law of

respondent No.2 i.e., Jayamma, filed a suit against

Thippareddy, husband of the petitioner No.1, and others,

for partition of the various properties in 2006 which was

registered a O.S.No.1754/2006, which came to be

dismissed by the Civil Court on 26.4.2019. Later, the

respondent No.2 and families on behalf of the Jayamma

filed an appeal before the High Court in RFA No.1570/2019

which also came to be dismissed on 05.03.2021. In the

said case Sy.No.10 was also a part of the schedule

property and the respondent No.2 father-in-law was

unsuccessful in the civil suit and the legal heirs of the

Jayamma also were unsuccessful in the first appeal before

the High Court. After two months, this present complaint

came to be filed which reveals that in spite of concluding

the civil dispute, the respondent came with a new case by

filing the complaint, that the land was belonging to the

Government. Of course, long back, the forefathers of the

Thippareddy and others were jodidars of the said property.

Later, the said property was succeeded and in the year

1923, there was partition among the family members and

based upon the same, the property was continued to be in

possession of the family of the petitioners. In the year

1978, Sri.Shamanna Reddy executed 'Will' in favour of

Thippareddy who is the husband of the petitioner No.1 and

the said Thippareddy developed the temple by constructing

compound wall, Choultry and he had died on 25.12.2015.

During his lifetime, the Trust Deed was created on

01.07.2005 for maintenance of the temple. Such being

the case, absolutely, there is no case against petitioners

for having committed any cognizable offence in order to

investigate the matter by the police. The civil suit is

already decided by the High Court and attained the finality.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent though

relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Niharika Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 by Hon'ble

Supreme Court and also State of Haryana and Others

Vs Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 AIR 604

case and other judgments of the High Court. There is no

second thought in respect of the principles laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, it is well

settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case

aforementioned that when there is no cognizable offence

made out for the purpose of investigating the matter, then

the High court can exercise the power under Section 482

of Cr.P.C and quash the criminal proceedings or FIR.

15. The respondent's counsel also relied upon the

judgment of High Court in the case of

Chikkamuniyappareddy Memorial Trust Vs State of

Karnataka, reported in ILR 1997 Karnataka 2460, the

judgment is not applicable to the present facts and

circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, I am of the

view that the complainant has not made out the case for

investigation in this crime and continuing the investigation

is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, the FIR

is liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

The FIR filed against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7

in Crime No.117/2021 registered by the Halasurgate police

station, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CS/AKV