Karnataka High Court
Sri Keval Kumar M Shah vs The State Of Karnataka By on 16 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8204 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KEVAL KUMAR M SHAH
S/O SRI MANSUKHLAL SHAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
DIRECTOR
M/S CHELSEA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.12
2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560046.
2. SRI R MAHENDRA KUMAR SHAH
S/O SRI RAICHAND SHAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT 10/B, VIOLA RESIDENCY
BEHIND VALENTINE MULTIPLEX THEATER
BESIDE REVIER PALACE
DUMAS ROAD, SURAT -395001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA S UPASANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
2
VISWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
2. SRI M MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNISHYAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDENT OF ILTHORE VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED
BY THE 1st RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS DATED
29.04.2021 IN C.C.NO.3931/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-A FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGEDLY
COMMITTED BY THEM AND P/U/S 427,447,34 AND 506(B) OF IPC,
1860, PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2nd
RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.79/2020 AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 25.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the
proceedings pending in C.C.No.3931/2021 on the file of the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, Bengaluru
Rural District for the offences punishable under Sections 427,
447, 34 and 506(B) of IPC.
2. The respondent No.2/complainant lodged a
complaint which led to registration of crime in Crime
No.79/2020. The respondent No.2/complainant in his
complaint alleged that he is the owner of agricultural land
bearing Sy.No.47 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and that he is in
lawful possession over the suit land. It is further alleged that
on 23.04.2020, at about 5.00 p.m., the present
petitioners/accused along with one Ramachandra illegally
trespassed into the land and demolished the stone compound
wall and one Marappa S/o Late Munishamappa who witnessed
the incident informed the complainant herein. The respondent
No.2 further alleged that when he tried to enquire with
petitioner/accused No.1, without any provocation, the
petitioner/accused No.1 picked up a club and threatened
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 alleged that on
account of life threat, he left the scene and therefore, alleged
that on account of highhandedness of the petitioners, he has
incurred loss of Rs.80,000/-. It is also stated that as there was
lock down on account of COVID, he was not able to report it to
the jurisdictional police. Hence, a complaint is lodged on
06.10.2020 reporting the incident that has occurred on
23.04.2020 at about 5.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer upon
investigation has laid a charge sheet in C.C.No.3931/2021.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would point out
that there is already civil dispute pending between respondent
No.2 and M/s.Chelsea Builders and Developers (P) Ltd. in
O.S.No.340/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
contended that petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1 has
instituted a suit in O.S.No.372/2010 and there is injunction
order operating against respondent No.2. The proceedings are
sought to be quashed on the ground that respondent No.2 is
proned to file repeated frivolous complaints. Learned counsel
for the petitioners would point out that respondent No.2 had
filed a similar frivolous complaint against the petitioners and
others under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case
No.645/2011. Learned counsel would point out that said
proceedings ended up in acquittal of petitioner No.1 by order
dated 21.03.2013. He would also point out that petitioner
No.2 having come to know about the proceedings in Special
Case No.645/2011, approached this Court by filing a petition
under Section 482 and this Court vide order dated 11.09.2017
has quashed the proceedings pending in Special Case
No.645/2011. He would also point out that the petitioner No.1
herein lodged a complaint on 22.07.2010 alleging that
respondent No.2 has demolished the compound over the land
bearing Sy.Nos.131, 132 and 47. The complaint lodged by the
present petitioner in Crime No.84/2010 relates to three survey
numbers. He would point out that the Investigating Officer
has laid charge sheet against respondent No.2/complainant.
Therefore, the present complaint alleging that petitioners have
demolished the compound wall and consequent registration of
crime is not only frivolous but the same is tainted with
malafides.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that civil dispute was pending as on the date of registration of
complaint by petitioners in Crime No.84/2010. Therefore, the
Investigating Officer could not have entertained the complaint
lodged by respondent No.2 who is already accused and is
facing criminal proceedings pursuant to registration of crime in
Crime No.84/2010. Same set of allegations which were
attributed against respondent No.2 by petitioners in crime
No.84/2010 are alleged in the present complaint which lead to
registration of crime in Crime No.79/2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 427, 447, 34, 506(B) of IPC.
Referring to the interim order granted by the Civil Court and
the fact that charge sheet is already filed against respondent
No.2/complainant in crime No.84/2010, the investigation and
consequent filing of charge sheet in Crime No.79/2020
alleging demolition of compound is clearly in conflict with
charge sheet filed in Crime No.84/2010.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would, however, resist
the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of the proceedings. He would contend that since
charge sheet is laid, it is a fit case for trial and the proceedings
cannot be quashed at this juncture.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/complainant arguing in the same vein, would persuade
this Court not to grant any indulgence when charge sheet is
already laid by the Investigating Officer. He would also
contend that all contentions raised in the captioned petition
have to be dealt by the Court during full-fledged trial and
therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this juncture.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/complainant.
8. On examining the material placed on record by
petitioners, it can be gathered that dispute is in regard to title
over Sy.No.47. Strangely, respondent No.2 since 2011 has
been alleging that present petitioners and their vendors
namely Mahendra Kumar Shah and others have been
threatening to demolish the stone pillars. It is evident from
the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in Special
Case No.645/2011 which was filed against petitioner No.1 and
others for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506,
114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 that the learned District Judge has taken
cognizance of pending civil suits in O.S.No.340/2010 and
O.S.No.372/2010. Referring to the certified copy of exparte
temporary injunction, the District Judge has recorded a finding
that the filing of complaint in Special Case No.645/2011 was
on account of interim injunction granted in favour of the
present petitioner and others. Pursuant to acquittal order
passed in Special Case No.645/2011, accused No.1 in Special
case No.645/2011 who was stated to be absconding filed a
petition under Section 482 seeking quashing of the
proceedings in C.C.No.667/2011. This Court while allowing
the petition has also taken cognizance of pending two suits in
O.S.Nos.340/2010 and 372/2010. This Court has also taken
cognizance of the fact that respondent No.2/complainant is
restrained from interfering with lawful possession and
enjoyment over agricultural land bearing Sy.No.47 owned and
possessed by the accused persons. Taking cognizance of the
acquittal order passed in Special Case No.645/2011, this Court
was of the view that accused No.1 who is similarly placed is
also entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.
9. It would be useful for this Court to examine the
interim injunction granted in O.S.No.340/2010 against the
respondent No.2/complainant. The findings recorded at point
No.3 would be useful for this case and the same is culled out
as under:
"10. Point No.3: As discussed above, the plaintiff
has made out prima-facie case and balance of
convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Granting of
temporary injunction is always for maintaining the state
of things as exist today till disposal of the matter in
controversy. In the present case on hand though the
defendant has denied the alleged interference in the suit
properties but not denied the ownership and possession
of the plaintiff. But in the argument the learned counsel
for the defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiff
over the suit property. The exparte Temporary
Injunction granted is till in force. If the temporary
injunction granted is not continued and any interference
is caused in the suit property, the plaintiff would be put
to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any
terms. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that it is
a fit case to grant the interim relief as prayed for.
Hence, I answer the point 3 in favour of the plaintiff i.e.,
in the AFFIRMATIVE."
10. Interestingly, petitioners have lodged a complaint
and the same allegations are attributed against the
respondent No.2/complainant and that lead to registration of
crime in Crime No.84/2010 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 447, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
The allegation in crime No.84/2010 reads as under:
"PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À:
¢£ÁAPÀ 22/07/2010 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºßÀ 2 UÀAmÉUÉ
¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤Ãr vÁ£ÀÄ ²æÃ. ªÀĺÉÃAzÀæ PÀĪÀiÁgï
µÁ JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ f¦J ºÉÆîØgï DVgÀÄvÉÛ£É. E¯ïvÉÆgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð
£ÀA§gï 131, 132, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 47 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 42 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ EzÀÄÝ
¸ÀzÀgÉE d«ÄãÀÄ §Æ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉUÆ É ArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Æ
1996 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è PÁA¥ËAqï UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¢:
20/07/2010 gÀ gÁwæ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ 25-30 d£ÀgÀÄ
§AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄäUÉ ºÁPÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ PÁA¥ËAqï UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉqÀ«
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 25-30 ®PÀë £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁr vÀªÄÀ ä PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÉ ¥Áæt
¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ
dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÀAvÀ PÉÆlÖ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛ."
11. On reading the contents of FIR registered in Crime
No.84/2010, the petitioners have clearly alleged that
respondent No.2 on 22.07.2010 along with 25 to 30 people
trespassed into the land and has demolished the compound
and has caused damage of Rs.25-30 Lakhs. This incident is
dated 22.07.2010. If petitioners have already reported the
demolition of compound wall coupled with the fact that in civil
suits, injunction is granted in favour of the petitioners and
others, the question that needs consideration at the hands of
this Court is as to whether a similar complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 who is arrayed as accused in Crime
No.84/2010 is maintainable and Investigating Officer could
have laid a conflicting charge sheet.
12. This issue is dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another1. The Apex Court while dealing
with an identical case held that second complaint relating to
(2021) 5 SCC 435
same incident cannot be entertained and it is not only
impermissible but it would be violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Apex Court has also taken note of the fact
that complaint which was filed after inordinate delay relating
to the same incident, suppressing material facts and utilising
fresh proceedings amounts to gross abuse of process of Court.
13. Article 21 of the Constitution as held by the Apex
Court in the judgment cited supra, guarantees that right to life
and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of
law. The Apex Court was of the view that permitting multiple
complaints by the same party repeatedly alleging same
incident will lead to accused being entangled in numerous
proceedings. The Apex Court also held that frivolous litigation
should not become the order of the day and the citizens
should not be permitted to misuse by initiating false criminal
proceedings to harass their adversaries, more particularly
when civil suits are pending consideration.
14. If respondent No.2/complainant is facing criminal
proceedings and there are serious allegations against him that
he has demolished the compound wall in 2010, the
Investigating Officer without taking cognizance of the charge
sheet laid in Crime No.84/2010, could not have entertained
the second complaint and therefore, the charge sheet laid in
the present case in C.C.No.3931/2021 is clearly found to be in
conflict with the charge sheet already laid in earlier criminal
proceedings which was at the instance of the present
petitioners who had clearly alleged in the complaint that
respondent No.2 along with 25 to 30 people has illegally
trespassed and demolished the compound wall.
15. Having examined the material on record, this Court
needs to examine as to whether the complaint lodged after
delay of six months and the consequent registration of crime
and laying of charge sheet is sustainable.
16. The proceedings are also liable to be quashed on
the ground of delay. Even if the COVID period is excluded,
there is a delay of four months in lodging the complaint. The
Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that delay in
lodging FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature
of an afterthought. Prompt and early reporting of the
occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an
assurance regarding truth of its version. The fact that
respondent No.2/complainant who is charge sheeted on the
allegations that he has demolished the compound wall
pertaining to Sy.No.47 by filing false complaint has introduced
a coloured version which is concocted as a result of
deliberation and consultation. Though there is delay of four
months, the complainant has not offered any plausible
explanation for the delay in lodging FIR. The delay in this
case only leads to an inference that a counter complaint is
entertained in respect of the same incident which is already
reported by the petitioners which lead to registration of crime
in Crime No.84/2010. The delay in lodging FIR virtually
demonstrates the trustworthy prosecution case.
17. The reason for quashing the proceedings in the
present case on hand is not only on the ground of delay but
also on the ground that the charge sheet filed by the
Investigating Officer in the present case clearly contradicts
and is in conflict with the charge sheet filed in Crime
No.84/2010, wherein accused No.1 is the complainant. If
Investigating Officer after due investigation has lodged charge
sheet which relates to an incident that has occurred in 2010
which refers to demolition of a compound wall, the respondent
No.2/complainant cannot lodge a complaint in 2020, referring
to the same incident relating to demolition of compound wall
in Sy.No.47. Therefore, investigation is also found to be
tainted with malafides and the charge sheet laid by the
Investigating Officer lacks credibility. This is a classic case of
abuse of process and the Investigating Officer in connivance
with respondent No.2/complainant has concocted a false story
and a crime is registered on frivolous allegations.
18. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings pending in
C.C.No.3931/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural
District for the offence punishable under Sections
427, 447, 34 and 506(B) of IPC, insofar as it
relates to the petitioners are concerned, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
