Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3003
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI KESHAVA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY – Respondent
WP 168 of 2023
Absence of notice prior to complaint registration invalidates charges under IPC sections related to criminal trespass.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 441, 447, 427, 506 - Quashing of charge sheet - Petitioner sought to quash charge sheet for offences under IPC sections, arguing lack of notice prior to complaint registration - Court held that absence of notice invalidates charges under Sections 447, 427, and 506 - Reliance placed on prior judgment regarding necessity of notice for criminal trespass. (Paras 3, 4, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of offences - Trial Court must apply itself to facts and ensure sufficient material exists before taking cognizance of offences - Blind acceptance of charge sheet without scrutiny is improper. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the registration of a criminal case for offences under IPC sections, asserting that no notice was issued prior to the complaint, which is a prerequisite for invoking certain offences. The respondent alleged that the petitioner encroached on his property and threatened him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of notice invalidated the charges against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the absence of notice prior to the complaint registration invalidated the charges and whether the Trial Court properly considered the evidence before taking cognizance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without prior notice, the charges under Sections 441 and 447 of IPC could not stand, emphasizing the necessity of notice in cases of alleged criminal trespass.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“ a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Annexure-F the charge sheet 507/2015 and dated: 30.08.2018 and the order dated: 10.09.2018, as per Annexure-G issuing process to the petitioner by registering criminal case in C.C.No. 2145/2018, AS registered by the 1st Respondent for the offences punishable under Section 447 , 27,506 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Nelamangala Bangalore Rural District; and
b) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for 1st respondent and perused the material on record. Though the notice of this petition has been served upon the 2nd respondent, he has chosen to remain absent and unrepresented.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 447 in order to contend that notice is required before registering the complaint, failing which, the impugned proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 447 , 427 and 506 would not be maintainable and deserves to be quashed. It is also pointed that for quashment of the proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC, the consequent offences under Sections 427 and 506 IPC would also not survive and the same also deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofH.Srinivas Reddy @ Chaky vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. – Crl.P.No.10005/2021 dated 30.10.2023.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, in the light of amendment made to Sections 441 and 447, a proper/ necessary notice prior to registration of the complaint would be required by the complainant calling upon the accused to remove the encroachment and in the absence of such notice, the petitioner cannot be alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 441 and 447 of IPC. Under identical circumstances, this Court inH.Srinivas Reddy’s case supra, held as under:-
“ The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.20397/2020 pending trial before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 447, 427, 506 of IPC.
2. The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 12.11.2018 about the commission of cognizable offences by petitioner. He claimed that he was residing in the United States of America. He claimed that he owned a property bearing No.1, Khata No.624/1 carved out of residentially converted land in Sy.No.1/2 measuring 11,500 square feet, he having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 24.03.2004. He claimed that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and had enclosed it by a hollow brick compound wall. He claimed that when he visited Bengaluru on 21.10.2018 and visited the property on 26.10.2018 along with his friend, he noticed that temporary structures were put up in the property and on verification, he came to know that it was done at the instance of the petitioner/accused. He claimed that the petitioner/accused was the owner of the adjacent property on the eastern side and that he demolished the portion of the compound wall and entered into his property and put up temporary sheds. He claimed that the accused was evading to meet him and had threatened him and his friends with dire consequences. He alleged that the accused threatened to kill him and his friend, if he entered the property. He also claimed that the accused had created documents to lay a claim to the property and therefore, requested the respondent No.1 to take suitable action against the petitioner/accused.
3. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime
