Karnataka High Court
Rajashekhar M And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200665 OF 2024
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAJASHEKHAR M. S/O ESHWARAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O EWS-1, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
2. SRI VISHWANATH M. S/O RAJASHEKHAR M.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PVT. WORK,
R/O EWS-1, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE SHO,
RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
REPT. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024
2. SRI M. NAGAPPA S/O ESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALMALA VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR,
NOW AT NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND
FURTHER QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.162/2024
(ARISING OUT OF P.C.NO.08/2023) CONSEQUENTLY ORDER OF
TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED
04-01-2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR
THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34
OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
The brief facts of the case are as under:
A private complaint was filed against the petitioners
stating that the lands bearing Sy.No.171/3 measuring 1 acre
12 guntas and Sy.No.171/4 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas
situated at Kalmala village are the ancestral properties of the
complainant. When respondent No.2 was doing agricultural
activities, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the family members who
claimed to be the owners of the said lands, abused the
respondent No.2 and also assaulted him. Consequently,
respondent No.2 fell on the ground. At that time, accused No.1
stated to have kicked the respondent No.2 and caused injuries.
The said quarrel was pacified by the intervention of the
neighbors. Therefore, he approached the jurisdictional police to
lodge a complaint. However, they did not take the complaint.
Therefore, he filed a private complaint. The learned Magistrate
after receiving the complaint, referred the matter to the
jurisdictional police for investigation. The Investigating Officer
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
after conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet
against these petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the averments made in the complaint are
baseless and false. Filing of the charge sheet against the
petitioners is sheer abuse of process of law and needs to be
quashed. In fact, a civil suit had been filed by one of the
petitioners against respondent No.2 and an order of restraining
the respondent No.2 was obtained. When the injunction was in
operation, respondent No.2 deliberately entered the lands in
order to trouble them.
4. It is further submitted that if a matter which is of
the civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence in
order to settle the civil dispute. Such criminal dispute has to
be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. Moreover,
there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.
Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in such
circumstances certainly would be considered as an abuse of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
process of law. Hence, the petition has to be allowed and the
charge sheet needs to be quashed. Making such submissions,
he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently justified in filing the charge sheet and he
submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the incident, who
had pacified the quarrel that had taken place between the
petitioners and respondent No.2.
6. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 being
the owner of the properties was cultivating the lands.
However, the petitioners intervened into the process of
cultivation and restrained him from proceeding further and
also assaulted him. Consequently, the complainant sustained
injuries.
7. It is further submitted that since the investigation is
completed and the charge sheet is filed, there are other
avenues available for the petitioners. Therefore, allowing the
petition is not necessary and he may be directed to approach
the Trial Court for necessary action. Making such submissions,
he prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the averments made in the
complaint, it is apparent that the dispute has arisen in respect
of the immovable properties bearing Sy.Nos.171/3 and 171/4.
The petitioners and respondent No.2 are stated to be the co-
sharers of the properties. However, the matter went to the
Civil Court by one of the co-sharers. The averments of the
petition would indicate that there was a restraint order against
respondent No.2 in respect of the disputed lands. However, on
the date of the alleged incident, the respondent No.2 stated to
have trespassed into the properties and started cultivating it.
9. As per the averments of the complaint, the incident
had occurred on 22.09.2022 around 12-00 noon. However, the
FIR came to be registered on 12.04.2023 i.e., after lapse of
seven months. Having considered the nature of allegations
made against the petitioners and also the delay in lodging the
complaint, it is appropriate to allow the petition.
10. Now it is relevant to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2000) 2
SCC 636. Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 read as under:
"7. It was submitted by Mr Lalit, learned
counsel for the second respondent that the
appellants have already filed an application in the
Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their
discharge and that this Court should not interfere in
the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold.
We do not think that on filing of any application for
discharge, High Court Cannot exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this
connection, reference may be made to two decisions
of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, [1998] 5 SCC 749 and Ashok
Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani, [1998] 7 SCC
698, wherein it has been specifically held that
though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction
to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if
he considers the charge to be groundless but that
does not mean that the accused cannot approach
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or
Article 227 of the Constitution to have the
proceeding quashed against them when no offence
has been made out against them and still why must
they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code has to be exercised with a great care. In
exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to
examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a
matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has
been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies
available in law. Before issuing process a criminal
court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the
accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which High Court is
to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, Jurisdiction under this section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
11. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, makes it clear that jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In
exercise of its jurisdiction, the High Court is not to examine
the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal
offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Under these circumstances, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485
inherent jurisdiction of the Court has to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law.
12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The further proceedings in C.C.No.162/2024 (arising
out of P.C.No.8/2023) consequently order of taking
cognizance and issuance of process dated
04.01.2024, pending on the file of III Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur registered by
respondent No.1/Raichur Rural Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the
petitioners is quashed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:PK
