Name: Latest Laws
Address: Indra Prakash Building, 703-704, Barakhamba Rd, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001, New Delhi, 110001, IN
Telephone: 8920383947

Karnataka High Court

Anil Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2025

Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar

                                                   -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:5611
                                                            CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                                    CRIMINAL PETITION NO.935 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   ANIL KUMAR
                           S/O VENKATSWAMY
                           AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                           R/AT NO.280/3, REDDY FARMS,
                           BEML LAYOUT,
                           R.R. NAGAR,
                           BENGALURU - 560 098.

                      2.   LOHITH KUMAR
                           S/O RANGANATH
                           AGED ABOUT 32 YEARSM
                           R/AT NO.499, 7TH MAIN
                           4TH 'A' CROSS ROAD
                           VIJAYANAGAR
                           BENGALURU - 560 040.

                      3.   ZAMEER AHMED @ RAJESH
                           S/O MOHAMMED ANSAR KHAN
Digitally signed by        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ARUNKUMAR M S              R/AT NO.15/A, 7TH CROSS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
                           7TH MAIN ROAD
                           KENGERI,
                           BENGALURU - 560 060.
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           THROUGH GNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION
                           REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                           BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                      -2-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:5611
                                                  CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023




2.   BHARATHI G.M.
     C/O BYRAIAH S.
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
     R/O NO.20, YASHASVI NILAYA,
     1ST MAIN ROAD, RESHMENAGARA,
     GANIGARA PALYA,
     TALAGATTAPUR POST,
     BENGALURU - 560 056.

3.   REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
     KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK,
     80 FEET ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 095.

                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3;
 R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT DATED 23RD NOVEMBER, 2020, F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO.286/2020 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1-JNANBHARATHI
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.
NO.10119/2021 FILED BEFORE THE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU AND THE
ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE
DATED 16TH APRIL, 2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 427, 447, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ALL ACTION PURSUANT THERETO
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT JNANABHARTHI POLICE STATION.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

                               ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioners seek following relief:

"(a) Call for records in C.C. No.10119/2021 on the file of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru;

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

(b) Quash the Complaint dated 23.11.2020, FIR in Crime No.286/2020 registered by the respondent No.1- Jnanabharathi Police Station, charge sheet in C.C. No.10119/2021 filed before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and the order taking cognizance of the learned Magistrate dated 16.04.2021 for offences punishable under Secs.427, 447, 504 r/w Sec.34 Indian Penal Code and all action pursuant thereunto pending on the file of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru filed by the Respondent-Jnanabharathi Police Station, in the interest of justice."

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners; learned counsel for

the respondent No.1; learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for

the respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.2-complainant having been served

with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and

has not contested the petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the

petitioner No.1 has instituted the Original Suit No.560/2018 against

the respondent No.2-complainant for permanent injunction and

other reliefs in relation to the immovable property bearing old

Survey No.9 presently Survey No.31 measuring 3 acre 3 guntas

situate at Sonnenahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

Taluk. The said suit filed before the I Additional Civil Judge,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru was decreed in favour of the

petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2-complainant by

judgment and decree dated 06th November, 2020, which reads as

under:

"J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Hanumanthappa was the absolute owner of the property bearing old Sy.No. 9 presently Sy.No. 31 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas situated at Sonnenahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 02.02.1989 from Smt. Lakshmamma and others. The said Hanumanthappa sold 2 acres 15 guntas and 3 guntas of kharab in favour of M.D. Ramakrishnaiah under the registered sale deed dated 04.08.2004. The said M.D. Ramakrishnaiah has formed sites in the said land and has sold property bearing No. 81 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 38 feet in katha No. 9 in favour of Sunil Reddy. The said Sunil Reddy has sold the said property in favour of Nageshwar Rao V. Pise and Smt. Kalpana Pise. Subsequently a rectification deed dated 17.12.2014 was executed by M.D. Ramakrishnaiah and Sunil Reddy for rectification of measurement of the said property as East to West 40 feet and North to South 30

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

feet instead of East to West 40 feet North to South 38 feet. The plaintiff has purchased the said property i.e., property bearing No. 81, old katha No. 9 pressent katha No. 31 i.e., the suit schedule property from Nageshwar Rao Pise and Smt. Kalpana Pise under the registered sale deed dated 13.10.2017. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property and is enjoying the same. The plaintiff has paid property tax. The plaintiff has constructed a shed in the suit schedule property. It is alleged that the defendant, on 13.04.2018, with the help of henchmen, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's approach to the police was of no use. Again on 16.04.2018, the defendant came near the suit schedule property and tried to demolish the structure built on the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The suit summons was served on the defendant through paper publication. The defendant has not appeared before the court and hence, she has been placed exparte.

4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW 1 and has got marked 9 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant?

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of permanent injunction as sought for?

4. What order or decree?

7. My answers to the above points are as hereunder:-

Point No. 1: In the Affirmative

Point No. 2: In the Affirmative

Point No. 3: In the Affirmative

Point No. 4: As per final order for the following

REASONS

8. Point No. 1:- In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW 1. PW 1 in his examination in chief, has reiterated the entire plaint averments. Further PW 1 has produced Ex.P1 to Ex.9.

9. I have carefully gone through the entire materials on record. Ex.Pl is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 04.08.2004 executed in favour of M.D. Ramakrishnaiah by Hanumanthappa in respect of 2 acres 15 guntas including 3 guntas of karab in old Sy.No. 9 present Sy.No. 31 of Sonnenahalli village. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 09.11.2012 executed by M.D. Ramakrishnaiah in favour of N. Sunil Reddy in respect of property bearing site NO. 81 katha No. 31 measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 38 feet. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 09.05.2013 executed by N. Sunil Reddy in favour of Nageshwara Rao and Smt. Kalpana in respect of the above said property. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the registered rectification deed dated 17.12.2014 executed by M.D. Ramakrishnaiah and N. Sunil

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

Reddy in favour of Nageshwara Rao and Kalpana to the effect that there has been a typographical mistake in mentioning the measurement of the property subjected to the sale deed dated 09.05.2013 and that the same has been rectified as East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 13.10.2017 executed in favour of the plaintiff by Nageshwara Rao Pise and Smt. Kalpana Pise in respect of the suit schedule property. The description of the property in the schedule to the plaint is in consonance with the description of the property of the schedule to Ex.P5. The recitals of Ex.P5 are to the effect that the possession of the suit schedule property has been delivered to the plaintiff as on the date of execution of Ex.P5. In support of his pleadings that he has paid property tax, the plaintiff has produced tax paid receipt marked at Ex.P6, certificate issued by the BBMP marked at Ex.P7 and Form No. 1 issued by BBMP marked at Ex.P8. Thus on considering the materials on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has produced cogent and reliable evidence to prove that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. The defendant, though has been served with the suit summons, has not at all resisted the suit of the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged. This gives rise to an inference that the defendant has no resistance to the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Hence, this court has answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

10. Point NO. 2: The plaintiff has specifically alleged that the defendant is causing interference with his possession over the suit schedule property. PW 1. in his examination in chief, has deposed to this effect. In order to disprove the above said allegation, there

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

is no resistance by the defendant to the suit. In the absence of any materials on record, there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved the alleged interference. Accordingly this court has answered Point No. 2 in the affirmative.

11.Point No. 3: The plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit schedule property and also the alleged interference by the defendant. The possessary rights of the plaintiff have to be protected. It is a well settled principle that when there is no resistance by the defendant, the courts have to be cautious in decreeing the suit. In this regard, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the plaintiff. There are no self contradictory statements made therein. Hence, there is no impediment in granting the injunctive reliefs as prayed by the plaintiff. With these observations and for the above said reasons, this court has answered Point No. 3 in the affirmative.

12. Point NO. 4: In view of the findings on Point No. 1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following.

ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.

The defendant, her agents, servants, henchmen and all other persons acting on her behalf are hereby permanently restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of thesuit schedule property and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

Draw decree accordingly."

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

5. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment and decree dated

06th November, 2020 passed in Original Suit No.560/2018 in favour

of the petitioner against the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2-

complainant lodged the complaint dated 23rd November, 2020,

which was registered in Crime No.286/2020 of Jnanabharathi

Police Station against the petitioners for the offences punishable

under Sections 427, 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. In pursuance of the same, the respondent

No.1-Police have filed charge sheet and proceedings are pending

in C.C No.10119/2021 before the learned Magistrate.

6. A perusal of the material on record will clearly indicate

that, despite having suffered in judgment and decree dated 06th

November, 2020 passed in Original Suit No.560/2018, the

respondent No.2-complainant had lodged the instant complaint

making allegations in relation to very same property, which is the

subject matter of Original Suit No.560/2018. It is therefore clear

that, by way of impugned complaint, the respondent No.2 seeks to

convert an essentially, predominantly and overwhelmingly civil

dispute into a criminal action by giving it a criminal colour, which is

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5611 CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023

impermissible under law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

following cases:

1) LALIT CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171,

2) CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI vs. K.C. PALANISWAMY AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 6 SCC 740,

3) JOSEPH SELVARAJ A. vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59,

4) M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

undisputed fact that the dispute between the petitioners and the

respondent No.2 is essentially of a civil nature/character, which

culminated in the judgment and decree dated 06th November, 2020

passed in Original Suit No.560/2018 by the competent Civil Court

prior to the respondent No.2 lodging instant complaint subsequently

on 23rd November, 2020, I am of the considered opinion that the

continuation of the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners

would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by

this Court in the present petition.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

- 11 -
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:5611
                                             CRL.P NO.935 OF 2023




                             ORDER

      1)     Criminal Petition is allowed;

      2)     The entire proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime
No.286/2020 registered by the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 3 pending in C.C. No.10119/2021 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.

SD/-

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

ARK List No.:2 Sl No.:1