CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3437 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. RAJU D.Y. @ RAJANNA D.Y

S/O DODDA RAMANNA

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO 124/A, 5TH MAIN,

3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA,

BENGALURU – 560 079.

(THE CORRECT NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS

RAJU D.Y @ RAJANNA,

BUT IN FIR AND COMPLAINT IT IS STATED AS

Y.D.RAJU AND IN CHARGE SHEET IT IS SHOWN

AS RAJU.D.Y. AND IN

CRL.MISC.NO.1275/2022 AS D.Y.RAJANNA)

2. SRI. RPASHANTH H Y

S/O D Y RAJANNA

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO 124/A, 5TH MAIN,

3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA,

BENGALURU – 560 079.

3. SRI. KIRAN

S/O D Y RAJANNA

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.124/A

5TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE

BASAVESHWARANAGARA

BANGALORE – 560 079.

4. SRI. SANJEEVA

S/O SIDDU

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

RESIDING AT KARAKKI SITE K

KELAGURU, KALASA HO AND POST

CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 124.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY KALASA POLICE STATION

CHIKKAMAGALURU

REPRESENTED BY SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT. MADHAVI

W/O MALLIKARJUNA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

RESIDING AT AMBAATIRTHA

MAVINAKERE, VILLAGE,

KALASA HO AND POST

CHIKKAMAGALURU KARNATAKA – 577 124.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. SHIVAPPA S JATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482(1) CR.PC PRAYING TO

ORDER FOR QUASH OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 17.07.2023

FILED BY THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

KOPPA SUB DIVISION KOPPA CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

OFFENCE PREVAILED UNDER SEC.447, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34

OF IPC IN CR.NO.85/2022 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, who are facing trial

for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 354(B), 504,

506 read with Section 34 of IPC are before this Court seeking

the following reliefs:

a. To Quash quash of Charge Sheet dated 17.07.2023 filed

by The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Koppa Sub

Division, Koppa Chikmagaluru District offences prevailed

under Section 447, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34,

IPC, in Crime No.85/2022;

b. To quash the FIR dated 25.12.2022 in Cr.No.85/2022 on

the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere

for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 504,

506 read with Section 34, IPC;

c. To quash the proceedings initiated before the Prl. Civil

Judge and JMFC Court, Mudigere in C.C.No.1041/2023.

d. Costs of the Petition.

2. The prosecution alleges that on 25.12.2022, the

petitioners/accused formed an unlawful assembly, criminally

trespassed into the complainant’s house, abused her in vulgar

language, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that a sale agreement was executed between the petitioners

and the defacto-complainant, granting possession to the

petitioners. The FIR was lodged only after the petitioners issued

a legal notice requesting the 2nd respondent to execute a

registered sale deed. Furthermore, the petitioners have filed a

suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. Therefore,

the dispute pertains to the terms and conditions of the sale

agreement, although there is a criminal aspect involving the

petitioners and the complainant’s husband.

4. In response, the learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent argued that the alleged sale agreement is a

fabricated document. The charge sheet materials reveal the

commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners, and

the veracity of these allegations can be examined during the

trial. Additionally, the complainant’s husband has filed a private

complaint against the petitioners for forging the signature and

creating the sale agreement.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP)

for the respondent-State reiterated the submissions of the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

6. After considering the arguments of the learned

counsel for the respective parties, the following observations

are made:

7. The statements of the complainant and the charge

sheet witnesses indicate that, aside from general a