Sri a N Shastri Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[b.sreenivase gowda j.] this crl.p filed u/s.482 cr.p.c by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the ii addl. c.m.m., bangalore in pcr no. 705/2007 (cr. no. 20/2007) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said order.order1. petitioner in the above petition has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the ii addl. c.m.m.. bangalore in pcr no. 705/2007 (cr. no. 20/2007) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said order.2. the 2nd respondent is not represented even though several opportunities are given. hence i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned hcgp appearing for the first respondent.3. by the impugned order dated 28.12.2006 learned p addl. cmm. bangalore registered the private complaint filed by the 2"(l respondent against the petitioner under section 200 of cr.p.c. and referred the same to the first respondent police for investigation under section 156(3) of cr.p.c.4. in para 3 of the complaint, the complainant alleges that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing site no.56 carved out of sy.no.71 of kathriguppe village uttarahalli hobli. bangalore south taluk, herein after referred to as site having purchased under registered sale deed dated 08.02.1979. it is further alleged that the petitioner-accused taking advantage of the absence of the complainant at the site put up illegal construction and threatened him and even though he explained him about his ownership he did not care for it and therefore he issued him legal notice asking him to send documents. in para 8 of the complaint he alleges that his vendor seetharamaiah has tiled a suit against narasirnhaiah, the vendor of the accused in respect of the site in question. such being the case during the pendency of civil suit narasirnhaiah along with the accused have created and fabricated documents in respect of the site in question and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under sections 471 and 420 of ipc.5. in the suil os no.25970/207 filed by the complaint against the daughter of the petitioner viz. smt. nagaveni which he wrongly states in the complaint as the suit is filed by his vendor narasirnhaiah against the petitioner, he alleges that his father rajappa had purchased the suit site from one seetharamaiah under sale deed dated 8.02.1979 and after the demise of his father he is in possession and enjoyment of the site and the defendant nagaveni i.e. the daughter of the petitioner having no manner of right, title and interest had tress passed in to the site and put up illegal construction.6. as per the averments made in the plaint it is the daughter of the petitioner who is alleged to have trespassed into the site and illegally constructed a building and no allegations are made against the petitioner and there is already a civil suit filed by the complainant against the petitioner's daughter. if the complainant had brought the above facts to the notice of the learned magistrate, he would not have registered the private complaint and referred the same to police for investigation. even otherwise, natures of allegations are of civil in nature and therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose, rather it would amount to abuse of process of law.7. accordingly criminal petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the ii addl. c.m.m., bangalore in pcr no. 705/2007 (cr.20/2007) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said order are hereby quashed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Petitioner in the above petition has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the II Addl. C.M.M.. Bangalore in PCR No. 705/2007 (Cr. No. 20/2007) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said order.

2. The 2nd respondent is not represented even though several opportunities are given. Hence I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent.

3. By the impugned order dated 28.12.2006 learned P Addl. CMM. Bangalore registered the private complaint filed by the 2"(l respondent against the petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and referred the same to the first respondent police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

4. In Para 3 of the complaint, the complainant alleges that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing site No.56 carved out of Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe Village Uttarahalli Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk, herein after referred to as site having purchased under registered sale deed dated 08.02.1979. It is further alleged that the petitioner-accused taking advantage of the absence of the complainant at the site put up illegal construction and threatened him and even though he explained him about his ownership he did not care for it and therefore he issued him legal notice asking him to send documents. In Para 8 of the complaint he alleges that his vendor Seetharamaiah has tiled a suit against Narasirnhaiah, the vendor of the accused in respect of the site in question. Such being the case during the pendency of civil suit Narasirnhaiah along with the accused have created and fabricated documents in respect of the site in question and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under sections 471 and 420 of IPC.

5. In the suil OS No.25970/207 filed by the complaint against the daughter of the petitioner viz. Smt. Nagaveni which he wrongly states in the complaint as the suit is filed by his vendor Narasirnhaiah against the petitioner, he alleges that his father Rajappa had purchased the suit site from one Seetharamaiah under sale deed dated 8.02.1979 and after the demise of his father he is in possession and enjoyment of the site and the defendant Nagaveni i.e. the daughter of the petitioner having no manner of right, title and interest had tress passed in to the site and put up illegal construction.

6. As per the averments made in the plaint it is the daughter of the petitioner who is alleged to have trespassed into the site and illegally constructed a building and no allegations are made against the petitioner and there is already a civil suit filed by the complainant against the petitioner's daughter. If the complainant had brought the above facts to the notice of the learned Magistrate, he would not have registered the private complaint and referred the same to Police for investigation. Even otherwise, natures of allegations are of civil in nature and therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose, rather it would amount to abuse of process of law.

7. Accordingly criminal petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the II Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore in PCR No. 705/2007 (Cr.20/2007) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said order are hereby quashed.