Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sreenivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:651
CRL.P No. 6246 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6246 OF 2023
Between:
1. Sri. Sreenivas
S/o. Late Beemanna
Aged about 65 years
R/at Balepur Village
Channarayapatna Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bengaluru District - 562129.
2. Sri. Sunil
S/o. Sreenivas
Aged about 32 years
R/at Balepur Village
Channarayapatna Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Digitally signed Bengaluru District - 562129.
by C K LATHA
Location: HIGH 3. Smt. Narayanamma
COURT OF W/o. Sreenivas
KARNATAKA Aged about 56 years
R/at Balepur Village
Channarayapatna Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bengaluru District - 562129.
4. Smt. Anitha
W/o. Sheshidar,
Aged about 54 years
R/at No.543, Balaji Nilaya,
9th Cross, 5th Main,
AMS Layout,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:651
CRL.P No. 6246 of 2023
Vidhyaranya Puram,
Bengaluru.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Abhishek Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Chennarayapatna Police Station
Vijayapura Circle, Bengaluru District
Rep. by The State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560001.
2. Smt. Laxmidevamma
W/o. Late Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at Yaliyur Village,
Chennarayapatna Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bengaluru District - 573225.
...Respondents
(By Sri. P.Thejesh, HCGP, for R1;
R2- served, unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the complaint (Annexure-A) dated
01.03.2021, FIR in Cr.No.19/2021 dated 01.03.2021
(Annexure-B), Charge Sheet No.19/2021 dated 23.08.2021
(Annexure-C), order of cognizance dated 30.06.2023
(Annexure-D) and further proceedings pending on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural in
Spl.C.No.909/2023 as against the petitioners for the offence
p/u/s 341, 406, 420, 447 read with 34 of IPC as well as
sec.3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of SC/ST POA Act and
sec.192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
This Criminal Petition, coming on for admission, this
day, the court made the following:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:651
CRL.P No. 6246 of 2023
ORDER
Heard Sri Abhishek Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri P. Thejesh, learned HCGP, for
respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 is served with
notice of this petition but she has not entered appearance.
2. This is a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C
seeking to quash the proceedings in Special Case No.
909/2023 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, which is also a Special
Court for trial of offences under the Prevention of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. The petitioners are facing trial for the
offences punishable under sections 341, 406, 420, 447 of
IPC and sections 3(1) (f), (g), (r) and (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
(for short 'the Atrocities Act') read with section 34 of IPC
and section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:651
3. The allegations found in the charge sheet are that
totally 19 acres 31 guntas of land was granted in bits and
pieces to several persons belonging to scheduled caste.
But the grantees were found to be in possession of 14
acres 02 guntas and it was found that the remaining
extent of 05 acres 29 guntas which had been granted in
favour of CWs8 to 14 was renumbered as Sy. Nos. 54, 55,
101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 after re-survey. Accused 1 to
4 purchased this extent of land without obtaining
permission from the Government and thus they took over
the possession of the said land and constructed a
compound wall around the entire land with a view to
dispossessing the members of the scheduled caste by
occupying the land belonging to them. There is also an
allegation that they sold this land to some others.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the accused are the purchasers of the land from the
original grantees. Before the sale deeds were executed in
their favour, the sellers applied to the Government for
NC: 2024:KHC:651
granting permission and only after the permission was
granted they executed the sale deeds which are produced.
He refers to the permission letters issued by the
Government and submits that the permission letters are
the part of charge sheet. Therefore the allegations against
the petitioners that they forcibly dispossessed the
members of the scheduled caste from the land is false and
charge sheet has been filed in order to harass them. In
respect of this land several suits have been filed. They
applied for temporary injunction in the suit. The court did
not grant an order of temporary injunction and thereafter
they approached the police with false allegations. Since
several suits are pending, if the petitioners are made to
face the trial in connection with criminal case which is
baseless, it amounts to abuse of the process of court and
law. He refers to a decision of this court in the case of
LOKANATH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HALSURU
GATE POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER [2021 SCC
ONLINE KAR 14896] to argue that in a similar situation
this court quashed the proceedings. He also refers to a
NC: 2024:KHC:651
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of USHA
CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF WEST
BENGAL AND ANOTHER [2023 SCC ONLINE SC 90] to
argue that if the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, but
it is given a cloak of criminal offence, the proceedings in
criminal case are to be quashed to prevent the abuse of
the process of the court.
5. Sri Thejesh, Government Pleader, opposes the
petition and submits that if according to the petitioners
there are no materials for framing charge, they can apply
for discharge and the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C
cannot be exercised. He also submits that once charge
sheet is filed, either the accused have to face the trial or
make out a case for discharge and in this case there are
ample materials indicating the constitution of offences as
mentioned in the charge sheet and therefore petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6. After hearing both the sides, it is to be stated that
going by the charge sheet allegations it becomes clear that
NC: 2024:KHC:651
some members of the scheduled caste were granted
certain extent of land in Bommanahalli Village, Devanahalli
Taluk. It is stated that they are in possession of 14 acres
02 guntas of land. So far as 5 acres 29 guntas of land is
concerned, CWs8 to 14 ought to have been in possession,
but they are not in possession because it was included in
Sy. Nos. 54, 55, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105. Of course
there is an allegation that the petitioners herein purchased
that extent of land without obtaining permission from the
Government. But along with the charge sheet, copies of
the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Rural District, on 01.11.2008 are produced. These orders
clearly indicate permission being granted to persons
namely Munivenkatappa s/o Avalappa, Krishnappa s/o
Doddamuniyappa, Krishnappa s/o Kalappa, Anjinappa s/o
Hanumanthappa, Seenappa s/o Chikkamuniyappa. Some
of the charge sheet witnesses are the legal representatives
of the persons to whom permission was granted by the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, to sell the
lands granted to them. If the Deputy Commissioner
NC: 2024:KHC:651
granted permission, it is quite surprising as to how the
investigating officer could file charge sheet against the
petitioners who appear to have purchased certain extent
of land after the permission was granted. They have got
sale deeds in proof of purchasing the land. Looked in this
view, it can be clearly stated that invoking the offences
under sections 341, 406, 420, 447 of IPC and the
provisions of the Atrocities Act appear to be surprising. It
is not in dispute that before setting criminal law into
motion, suits had been filed for declaration of title by
some of the charge sheet witnesses and the suits are still
pending. It appears that temporary injunction was denied
in the suits and perhaps this could be the reason for
initiating criminal action. If this is the reason for initiating
criminal action, it is nothing but an abuse of process of the
court. In an identical situation, this court in the case of
Lokanath (supra) found it fit to quash the proceedings.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha
Chakraborty (supra) has made the following
observation:
NC: 2024:KHC:651
"16...... The same is the position with respect to
the alleged offences punishable under Sections
406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC. The
ingredients to attract the alleged offence
referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the
allegations contained in the application filed by
the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear
that the respondent had failed to make specific
allegation against the appellants herein in
respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual
position thus would reveal that the genesis as
also the purpose of criminal proceedings are
nothing but the aforesaid incident and further
that the dispute involved is essentially of civil
nature. The appellants and the respondents
have given a cloak of criminal offence in the
issue. In such circumstance when the
respondent had already resorted to the available
civil remedy and it is pending, going by the
decision in Paramjit Batra (supra), the High
Court would have quashed the criminal
proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process
of the Court but for the concealment."
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:651
7. Therefore I find that the petitioners have been
able to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C. If they are asked to face trial in
connection with the offences which prima facie appear to
have not taken place, trial cannot be held against them.
Hence the following :
ORDER
(a) Petition is allowed.
(b) The proceeding in Special Case No. 909/2023
on the file of II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, against the
petitioners is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKL
