ORDER :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.5835 of 2019 pending before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.163 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 427, 447, 448, 506 and 149 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. On 01-08-2018 the complainant registers a complaint before the Kodigehalli Police Station that on 13-01-2018 at about 9-00 a.m. the petitioners/accused have allegedly trespassed into her house, threatened her tenants to vacate the house, caused loss by disconnecting electricity. It is further alleged that the accused even have trespassed into houses belonging to others. Based upon the said complaint, a criminal case came to be registered in Crime No.163 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 427, 447, 448, 506 and 149 of the IPC. The police, on conduct and completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence in C.C.No.5835 of 2019. On filing of the charge sheet and cognizance being taken by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition. This Court, by its order dated 19-04-2022, has granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners and the proceedings have since then not proceeded further.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the issue in the case at hand is purely civil in nature, the complainant is trying to arm twist the petitioners for having lost all the litigations concerning the property. The learned counsel would further submit that the incident, according to the complaint, had taken place on 13-01-2018 but the complaint is registered after about seven months on 2-08-2018. If trespass, intimidation or any other offence that is alleged had happened on 13-01-2018 nothing stopped the complainant from registering the crime immediately, but is registered after 7 months. This fact would be enough circumstance to demonstrate mala fide action on the part of the complainant in registering the complaint.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the complainant is in possession of the property and the petitioners had sought to trespass into the property and destroyed belongings of all the persons who are on rent in the property belonging to the complainant. However, he would accept the fact of registering the complaint after seven months and attributes the said delay for following up in the civil proceedings that were pending between the parties. He would seek that it is a matter of trial in which the petitioners will have to come out clean.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in her submission that this is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean since charge sheet is already filed by the police.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. The allegation of the complainant in the complaint registered on 02-08-2018 is that the petitioners seven months ago trespassed into the property and created ruckus, took away the belongings and have intimidated the tenants residing in the property allegedly belonging to the complainant. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in Sy.No.11 of Kodigehalli Village Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) by issuance of preliminary notification on 3-01-1985 and later