Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M. KHAZI, J.
M.B. Ramu S/o Late M.B. Muniyappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 766 of 2022
Decided On : 02-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pancham R.D.
For the Respondents: A.J. Mallya, Venkat Satyanarayan A.
Court rejected the petition to quash the criminal proceedings, finding sufficient evidence to proceed to trial regarding property disputes and caste-based abuses.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(p)(q)(r)(s), 3(2)(i)(ii) - Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings for alleged property dispute and caste-based abuse - Petition rejected as prima facie material was found to proceed against accused. (Paras 1, 6, 10)
(B) Quashing of FIR - Grounds for quashing under Section 482 - No sustainable grounds presented for quashing as the disputes must be resolved through trial, and the allegations warranted further investigation. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners accused individuals claimed that a false complaint was filed against them by relatives regarding property ownership and alleged caste-based abuses during property disputes. The original owner Prakash Babu was missing, and allegations of property grab were made against the petitioners, alongside claims of forged documents.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial based on complaints against the petitioners involving property disputes and alleged abuses referring to caste.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioners had enough merit to warrant continuation of the case under the mentioned Acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the allegations provide enough basis for a trial, highlighting that the merits of the case cannot be resolved at the quashing stage.
Result: Petition rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definitions of the petition and the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim of false allegations in the complaint. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments constituted of prior false complaints and law challenges. (Para 5) |
| 4. investigation findings and need for trial. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion of the court regarding the petition. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them in Spl.C.No.1740/2021 (PCR.No.10/2018) for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 420, 464, 465, 467 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(p)(q)(r)(s), 3(2)(i)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that on 08.03.2018, one Katamma and respondent Nos.2 to 7 have filed PCR.No.10/2018 falsely alleging that they tried to grab the property in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala, now called Indiranagar of Bengaluru, which property earlier belong to Sri.Prakash Babu, who went missing in the year 1999 and unheard of. Thereby, the said properties are succeeded by his wife Saraswathi, who is no other than daughter of Smt.Katamma, complainant No.1. The said Smt Katamma died on 28.06.2008. It is claimed that Smt.Katamma and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are residing in the said properties and they belong to Scheduled Caste and that accused No.1 has created a Will and taken their signatures as witnesses on 29.12.2006 and that the accused persons are trying to knock off the said property and that accused Nos.3 and 4 abused them referring to their caste and that all the accused have wrongfully occupied the portion of land in possession of Smt.Katamma and other complainants and trying to transfer the said property and dispossess them.
3. The Special Court referred the complaint for investigation to ACP, Ulsoor (Halasur) Gate PS. After investigation, 'B' report is filed. The sworn statement of complainants were recorded and Exs.P1 to 13 are marked. Vide order dated 27.09.2021, the Special Court has ordered for registering case, which is being challenged in the present petition.
4. The impugned order is not in accordance with law. A false complaint is filed against the accused persons to wreck vengeance against them. Several civil disputes are pending between the parties. Earlier Smt.Katamma had given complaint in Cr.No.348/2011 and later she gave statement that it was filed at the instigation of some one and Smt.Saraswathi has executed a Will in favour of accused No.1 and withdrew the complaint. Complaint filed by more than one complainant is not maintainable and as such her entire complaint is vitiated. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is not sustainable and prays to allow the petition.
5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing petitioners has relied upon the decision in Thethavusamy Vs. Radhakrishna , 2006 (8) LAWS (MAD) 120.
6.1 On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit that complainant No.1 is the mother of complainant Nos.2 to 6. Complainant No.7 is the grand daughter of complainant No.1 through her daughter Late Muninarayanamma. The 4th daughter of complainant No.1 Smt.Saraswathi also passed away. All the complainants are residing in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala Village now called as Indiranagar. Complainants belong to Scheduled Caste.
6.2 Learned HCGP would further submit that Late Saraswathi was given in marriage to Prakash Babu on 12.06.1994. The marriage was also registered. Prakash Babu inherited approximately to an extent of 2 1/2 acres in Sy.No.135 and 136 of Binnamangala. Later a portion of the said land was acquired by BDA for the purpose of formation of 100 ft road. After utilizing the required land, the BDA re-conveyed 22,000 Sq.ft to the original owners. In the family partitio
