Karnataka High Court
Bhagavanthrayagouda And Ors vs The State Of Karantaka And Anr on 3 January, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
CRL.P No. 200724 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200724 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BHAGAVANTHRAYAGOUDA
S/O GOLLALAPPAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TELAGBAL, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
2. SRI. GURANNAGOUDA
S/O GOLLALAPPAGOUDA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TELAGBAL, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
3. SRI. GOLLALAPPAGOUDA
Digitally signed by S/O GURANNAGOUDA,
SHILPA R AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
TENIHALLI
Location: HIGH
R/O. TELAGBAL, TQ. YEDRAMI,
COURT OF DIST. KALABURAGI.
KARNATAKA
4. SMT. BORAMMA
S/O BHAGAWANTHRAYAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. TELAGBAL, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B. BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
CRL.P No. 200724 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA,
REPRESENTED BY,
YEDRAMI POLICE STATION, YEDRAMI,
TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
2. SRI. CHANDRAMAPPA
S/O NAGAPPAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TELAGBAL, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
MS. NILUFARHANAZ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GANESH S. KALABURAGI FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR, CHARGESHEET AND CONSEQUEST
PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.1202/2022 (ARISEN FROM CRIME
NO.0151/2022) REGISTERED IN YEDRAMI POLICE STATION
YEDRAMI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 447, 427, R/W 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
JEWARGI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No.1202/2022, arising out of Crime No.151/2022 of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
Yedrami police station, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section
34 of IPC.
2. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that
on 29.08.2022, at about 8.00 p.m., the petitioners alleged
to have trespassed in the land of the complainant
measuring 9 acres and damaged the crop grown in one
acre of land. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR came
to be registered and later on, the Investigating Officer
after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge
sheet for the aforesaid offences. On the basis of the
charge sheet materials, the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offences and issued process.
Subsequently, the petitioners have appeared before the
learned Magistrate and were enlarged on bail. Initially,
the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath, wherein, it is
reported that none of the parties were represented and
hence, the matter be returned to the Court. Being
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
aggrieved by registration of the case after taking
cognizance, this petition is filed by the petitioners.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
4. The main contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that there is a civil dispute between the
parties and that has been suppressed by the complainant
and hence, the criminal prosecution has been lodged
under the guise of civil dispute and it is not maintainable.
In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the
unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of
West Bengal and Another arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.5866/2022.
5. Per contra, learned counsels for the
respondents would oppose the petition contending that the
grounds urged in the petition are to be considered during
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
the course of trial and hence, sought for dismissal of the
petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the
crime was registered on the basis of the complaint dated
31.08.2022 in respect of the incident said to have been
taken place on 29.08.2022 at about 8.00 p.m. The
complainant claims to be the owner of Survey No.140 of
Konasirasagi village, Yedrami taluka to the extent of 9
acres 9 guntas, while petitioner No.4 is alleged to be
owning 4 acres of land in the said survey number. The
contention of the petitioners is that the complainant has
filed a civil suit claiming title in respect of 12 acres of land
and after having failed to obtain the temporary injunction
and when a counter claim has been filed, he filed this
criminal case and it is the outcome of a civil litigation. No
doubt the complainant has not disclosed about the civil
litigation in his complaint, but, the ROR of Survey No.140
shows that he is the owner of 9 acres 9 guntas of land,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
while petitioner No.4 is the owner of 4 acres of land. On
perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the complaint is
restricted to 9 acres 3 guntas of land in Survey No.140
and it is not pertaining to the entire 12 acres of land.
7. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case as the said case
was pertaining to a private complaint, which was referred
under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. and at the stage of FIR only,
the proceedings have been quashed. But, in the instant
case, admittedly there is no serious dispute regarding the
fact that the complainant is the owner of 9 acres 9 guntas
of land and that dispute of 12 acres needs to be resolved
by the Civil Court.
8. The allegations made in the complaint are in
respect of trespass and damage to the crop grown in
Survey No.140 belonging to the complainant. All these
aspects are to be tested during the trial and merely on the
ground that there is a civil dispute, the entire criminal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:70
proceedings cannot be quashed. The petitioners are at
liberty to urge all these grounds before the Trial Court
during the course of trial. It is not a rarest of rare case
wherein the discretion of this Court can be exercised for
quashing the proceedings. The petition being devoid of
any merit and does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRT
