Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.A. Patil, J.
Charles V. Martin And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of Karnataka And Another - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.8400/2016
Decided On : 02-01-2020
Sri K. Suman, Advocate, for the Appellants; Sri Showri H.R., HCGP, for the Respondent No. 1; Sri Mohamed Sadiqh B.A., Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to carefully consider the nature of the dispute and prevent abuse of process of law when exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions and guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and concluded that the dispute was purely civil in nature and an abuse of process of law, thus allowing the petition to quash the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a case involving offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC, filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. The case involved a dispute between partners of a firm over property rights, with allegations of trespass and criminal offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and an abuse of process of law. It noted that the partnership deed and other documents indicated a civil dispute, and the injunction order further supported the civil nature of the dispute. The court concluded that the FIR should be quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR constituted a criminal offence or if the dispute was purely civil in nature, thus warranting the quashing of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It emphasized the need to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The court concluded that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and an abuse of process of law, justifying the quashing of the FIR.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR in Crime No.145/2016 of Begur Police Station was quashed. The court clarified that its observations would not affect other pending proceedings and litigation between the parties.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by petitioners-accused Nos.5, 2, 1, 6, 7 and 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.145/2016 of Begur Police, pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gundlupete for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
3. Though this case is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. The factual matrix of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a partnership firm under the name and style of M/S.Sai Priya Hema Krishna Associates and they entered into a lease deed to carry out the business in Sy.No.190 and 191/1 of Hirikati Village, Begur Hobli. A lease deed was got executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the said firm and the said firm was having absolute ownership over the property. It is further contended that after acquiring the property, the partnership firm was reconstituted under the deed of partnership and carried on a business without any interference from any of the partner. It is alleged that on 24.9.2016 there was unlawful interference by respondent No.2, her husband and two others. The Managing Partner of the said firm filed the complaint. As the respondent-police declined to receive the complaint, they filed a suit O.S.No.249/2016 before the learned Civil Judge, Gundlupet and the learned Civil Judge by order dated 4.10.2016 granted temporary injunction. It is further alleged that subsequently the petitioners-accused came to know that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint on 9.10.2016 in Crime No.145/2016 alleging that the accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners-accused are before this Court.
5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners-accused and respondent No.2 are the partners of the said firm. When they are the partners and in joint possession of the schedule properties, then under such circumstances, committing of an offence as alleged will not be attracted. It is his further submission that when there was an interference of respondent No.2, he approached the Civil Court and obtained an injunction order on 4.10.2016. When an injunction order was there, there is no question of dispossessing respondent No.2. It is his further submission that there were registered sale deed and lease deed to show that the Company or the firm was in possession of the said properties and a civil suit is also pending in O.S.No.249/2016 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet. Then under such circumstances it is purely a civil dispute, by abuse of process of law, a false complaint has been filed. It is his further contention that even if the entire complaint is read, none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are attracted. Even if the entire investigation is completed, then under such circumstances, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and the petitioners are called as an accused and their rights and liberties are going to be affected in this behalf. When there is no material as against the petitioners-accused, they cannot be arrayed as an accused. It is his further submission that respondent No.2 only with an intention to usurp and grab the entire property, belonging to the petitioners-accused, with a dishonest intention registered a false complaint. It is his further submission that when the facts disclosed that the matter in issue is purely a civil dispute, then under such circumstances the proceedings initiated by virtue of filing the complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that the civil rights have been converted into a criminal offence only
