SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Shivaswamy and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Karnataka and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.2776 of 2022
Decided on 8.7.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Sri Nitin Ramesh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP
for R-1; Sri Sampat Anand Shetty, Advocate for R-2

IMPORTANT POINT
If possession itself is not with the complainant, there can be no offence of criminal trespass into property not belonging to complainant.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 427, 447, 448, 506 and 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Mischief, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation – Quashing petition – Allegation of complainant is that petitioners seven months ago trespassed into property and created ruckus, took away belongings and have intimidated tenants residing in property allegedly belonging to complainant – If possession is not with complainant, she can hardly contend that accused have trespassed into property of complainant – If possession itself is not with the complainant, there can be no offence of criminal trespass into property not belonging to complainant – If there is no criminal trespass into property, causing damage under Section 427 of IPC, by way of mischief of destruction of property also cannot be alleged, as they are inseparable – If further proceedings are permitted to continue against petitioners, notwithstanding fact that charge-sheet has been filed by Police, would become abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice – All proceedings quashed, qua petitioner. (Paras 8, 12, 13, 17 and 18)

Result:Criminal Petition allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • The petitioners filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings (C.C.No.5835 of 2019) initiated against them for offences under Sections 143, 427, 447, 448, 506, and 149 of the IPC. (!)
  • The prosecution alleges that the petitioners trespassed into the complainant's house, threatened tenants, caused loss by disconnecting electricity, and intimidated residents. (!)
  • The petitioners argue the matter is purely civil in nature and contend that the complaint was registered seven months after the alleged incident, indicating mala fide action by the complainant. (!)
  • The complainant argues the delay in registering the complaint was due to pending civil proceedings and asserts they are in possession of the property. (!)
  • The Court notes that the land was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 1986, and possession was handed over to the NTI Housing Co-operative Society in 2003. (!)
  • A previous Writ Petition dismissed the complainant's claim, holding that possession was handed over to the Society in 2003 and that the petitioners (subsequent purchasers) do not have locus standi to challenge the acquisition notifications. (!)
  • The Court reiterates that despite earlier orders, the complainant continues to challenge the acquisition with alleged mala fide intentions. (!)
  • The Court holds that Section 441 of the IPC defines criminal trespass as entering property in the possession of another; therefore, if the complainant is not in possession, the offence of criminal trespass cannot be established. (!)
  • The Court rules that without criminal trespass under Section 447, allegations of causing damage to property under Section 427 (mischief) are inseparable and cannot stand in the peculiar facts of this case. (!)
  • The Court finds that allowing further proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice given the doubt regarding possession. (!)
  • The Court quashes all proceedings in C.C.No.5835 of 2019 against the petitioners. (!)
  • The Court clarifies that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and do not bind or influence further proceedings. (!)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top