Karnataka High Court

Shri. N.M. Mahadeva vs State Of Karnataka By on 25 February, 2025

                                            -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:8275
                                                      CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021
                                                  C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9128 OF 2021
                                            C/W
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9146 OF 2021

              IN CRL.P NO. 9128/2021

              BETWEEN:
              SHRI N.M. MAHADEVA
              S/O. LATE MARIMADHU,
              AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
              R/AT. NO.419, GIRIDARSHINI
              LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 026
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE)
              AND:
              1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                   ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION
                   DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION,
                   MYSURU CITY - 570 026
Digitally          BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
signed by V        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N BADIGER
                   BANGALORE - 560 001
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF      2.
KARNATAKA          SHRI CHANDRAIAH M.G.,
                   S/O LATE GUDDAIAH,
                   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.177, 2ND STAGE,
                   6TH A MAIN ROAD, KAMAKSHI
                   PLAYA, BENGALURU CITY,
                   BENGALURU - 560 079
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
              (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1
                   R2 - SD - U/R)
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:8275
                                       CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021
                                   C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021



       THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.66/2020 DATED 04.08.2020 ON THE FILE
OF III J.M.F.C COURT MYSURU CITY MYSURU ON THE BASIS OF
ALLEGED COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 447 AND 504 OF IPC.

IN CRL.P NO. 9146/2021

BETWEEN:
1.   SHRI N.M. MAHADEVA
     S/O. LATE MARIMADHU,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     R/AT. NO.419, GIRIDARSHINI
     LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 026

2.   SHRI ANANDAKUMAR N.N.
     S/O SHRI S. NAJUNDEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.5/6, HEMADRIPRIYA
     NILAYA, PAPANNA LAYOUT,
     YARAGANAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 028.
                                                 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
     ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION
     DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION,
     MYSURU CITY - 570 026
     BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BANGALORE - 560 001

2.   SHRI CHANDRAIAH M.G.,
     S/O LATE GUDDAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.177, 2ND STAGE,
     6TH A MAIN ROAD, KAMAKSHI
     PLAYA, BENGALURU CITY,
     BENGALURU - 560 079
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1
     SRI. SACHIN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                -3-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:8275
                                         CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021
                                     C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021



     THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.69/2020 DATED 08.08.2020 ON THE FILE
OF III J.M.F.C COURT, MYSURU ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 447, 427, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA


                   COMMON ORAL ORDER

Even though the criminal petitions pertain to two different

criminal cases, the parties, subject matter of the dispute and

the allegations are similar and common, I propose to take up

both the petitions for disposal under the common order.

2. The petitioner being the sole accused in

Cr.No.66/2020 of Alanahalli police station, on the file of the

learned III J.M.F.C.Court Mysuru City, Mysuru, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504 of Indian

Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') has filed Crl.P.No.9128/2021,

petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.69/2020 of

Alanahally Police Station, on the file of the III J.M.F.C. Court

Mysuru City, Mysuru registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

IPC have filed Crl.P.No.9146/2021 seeking to quash the

criminal proceedings initiated against them.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2

being the complainant in Cr.Nos.66/2020 has lodged the first

information with Alanahally police station against the

petitioners, alleging commission of the offences as stated

above. It is the contention of the complainant that on

04.08.2020 at about 4.00 pm, when he gone near his site, he

found that a car and two wheelers were parked there without

his permission. On enquiry, he came to know that the vehicles

belong to the accused. When the complainant questioned the

accused as to why he had parked the vehicles in his land,

accused abused him in filthy language. The complainant filed

the suit O.S.No.1473/2012 seeking permanent injunction and

got the interim order of temporary injunction. Therefore, the

complainant contended that the accused has illegally and

criminally trespassed over his property, abused him in filthy

language, and also criminally intimidated. Therefore, he is

liable for prosecution. Accordingly, prayed for initiation of

criminal proceedings.

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

4. The very same complainant has filed the first

information on 08.08.2020 in Cr.No.69/2020 against accused

Nos.1 and 2 alleging that on 06.08.2020 when he was digging

foundation in the site in question for the purpose of putting

compound wall, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the spot, picked

up quarrel with the informant, demolished the half built

compound wall and abused the informant in filthy language.

They criminally intimidated the complainant to cause his death

and caused damages. Thereby, the accused committed the

offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504 and

506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Two FIRs came to be registered and

the investigations were undertaken. In the meantime, the

petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the

criminal proceedings. Since interim order of stay was granted,

further investigation was not undertaken.

5. Heard Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M., learned counsel for

the petitioners and Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 in

Crl.P.No.9128/2021 and Crl.P.No.9146/2021 respectively.

Sri. Sachin Kumar B.M., learned counsel for respondent No.2 in

Crl.P.No.9146/2021.

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that in fact the disputed site is bearing

No.479/419/7 of Giridarshini layout of Alanahalli. Respondent

No.2 is claiming site No.475/7. But asserting right over the site

No.479/419/7. The petitioners have taken the said site on lease

for the purpose of parking the vehicle. Respondent No.2

without having any right has raised the dispute.

7. Learned counsel submitted that even though the

complainant-respondent No.2 is claiming right over the

property on the basis of the decree passed in his favour in

OS.No.1473/2012, the said suit is only for permanent

injunction. The petitioners are not parties to the said suit. Even

though the said suit came to be decreed, initially, one of the

defendant filed Misc.No.43/2014 and as per order dated

14.11.2017, the said case was allowed and the decree dated

07.11.2013 passed in OS.No.1473/2012 was set aside. Later,

the suit was restored on file and since steps were not taken

against defendant Nos.1 to 3, the suit against them was

dismissed. Now the suit OS.No.1473/2012 is pending only

against defendant No.4, for which the petitioners are not the

parties.

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

8. Learned counsel also contended that the owner of

the site by name S.Venkatesh from whom the petitioner had

taken the site on lease had filed the suit OS.No.1665/2020 (Old

OS.No.224/2020) against respondent No.2 seeking permanent

injunction. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment

dated 09.02.2024. Thus, it is clear that the disputed site

belongs to S.Venkatesh-plaintiff in OS.No.1665/2020 and not

respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 is not the owner of

the site, he cannot allege any of the offences including trespass

by the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel submitted that accused No.1 has

filed the complaint against respondent No.2 and others and it is

registered in Cr.No.67/2020 of Alanahalli police station for the

offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504, 149 of

IPC and the same is pending for investigation. Respondent No.2

has never challenged the registration of criminal case against

him. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the

petitioners prays for quashing of the criminal proceedings in

both the cases, in the interest of justice.

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2

submit that the FIR was registered on the basis of the first

information. Investigation is not yet undertaken. Unless the

investigation is undertaken, the contention of the petitioners

cannot be accepted. Hence, they pray for passing appropriate

order.

11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

"Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the

following:

REASONS

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the

decree dated 07.11.2013 passed in OS.1473/2012, wherein

respondent No.2 as plaintiff filed the suit for permanent

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

injunction against one Krishnamurty and three others.

Petitioners are not the defendants in the said suit. It is the

specific contention of the complainant that in view of the decree

passed in OS.1473/2012, he asserts his rights. However,

learned counsel for the petitioners produced the order dated

14.11.2017 passed in Mis.Case No.43/2014 on the file of the

learned II Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore,

whereunder Misc case filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was

allowed, as a result, judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013

passed in OS.No.1473/2012 was set-aside. It is stated that the

suit is still pending against defendant No.4 alone as steps were

not taken against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the suit was

dismissed against them.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also

produced the copy of the judgment and decree dated

09.02.2024 passed in OS.No.1665/2020 on the file of the

learned 11th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore filed by

one S.Venkatesh represented by the GPA holder against

respondent No.2 herein. The suit was decreed exparte, granting

permanent injunction in favour of S.Venkatesh, who is said to

be the owner of the disputed site. Even though the complainant

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8275

is claiming site No.475/2007 of Alanahalli village, according to

the petitioners, it bears site No.479/419/07. When there is

serious dispute regarding the identity of the site, the dispute

will be of civil nature, the parties have to identify their

respective sites by proving their title and possession over the

same before the Civil Court. Instead, respondent No.2 filed two

separate complaints registered in Cr.No.66/2020 and 69/2020

of Alanahalli police station, which is in clear abuse of process of

law. Hence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petitions are allowed.

(ii) The FIR registered against accused No.1 in Crime

No. 66/2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 447 and 504 of IPC and the FIR

registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

No.69/2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 323, 504, 506 R/w Section 34

of IPC of Alanahally Police Station, on the file of