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
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.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
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
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
If possession itself is not with the complainant, there can be no offence of criminal trespass into property not belonging to complainant.
Ownership and possession negates criminal trespass charges against a person regarding their own property.
Criminal proceedings for trespass can proceed despite claims of civil dispute; factual examination is required during trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes and that the abuse of process of the court can warrant the quashing of crimin....
Point of law : In the, exercise of this. whole some power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of....
Possession based on a valid title deed suffices for establishing criminal trespass unless declared void by a competent court; a Magistrate must provide a reasoned order when taking cognizance.
The existence of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution when allegations disclose cognizable offences, affirming the concurrent nature of civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.