ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.3931/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 34 and 506(B) of IPC.

2. The respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint which led to registration of crime in Crime No.79/2020. The respondent No.2/complainant in his complaint alleged that he is the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.47 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and that he is in lawful possession over the suit land. It is further alleged that on 23.04.2020, at about 5.00 p.m., the present petitioners/accused along with one Ramachandra illegally trespassed into the land and demolished the stone compound wall and one Marappa S/o Late Munishamappa who witnessed the incident informed the complainant herein. The respondent No.2 further alleged that when he tried to enquire with petitioner/accused No.1, without any provocation, the petitioner/accused No.1 picked up a club and threatened respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 alleged that on account of life threat, he left the scene and therefore, alleged that on account of highhandedness of the petitioners, he has incurred loss of Rs.80,000/-. It is also stated that as there was lock down on account of COVID, he was not able to report it to the jurisdictional police. Hence, a complaint is lodged on 06.10.2020 reporting the incident that has occurred on 23.04.2020 at about 5.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer upon investigation has laid a charge sheet in C.C.No.3931/2021.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would point out that there is already civil dispute pending between respondent No.2 and M/s.Chelsea Builders and Developers (P) Ltd. in O.S.No.340/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1 has instituted a suit in O.S.No.372/2010 and there is injunction order operating against respondent No.2. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that respondent No.2 is proned to file repeated frivolous complaints. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that respondent No.2 had filed a similar frivolous complaint against the petitioners and others under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case No.645/2011. Learned counsel would point out that said proceedings ended up in acquittal of petitioner No.1 by order dated 21.03.2013. He would also point out that petitioner No.2 having come to know about the proceedings in Special Case No.645/2011, approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 and this Court vide order dated 11.09.2017 has quashed the proceedings pending in Special Case No.645/2011. He would also point out that the petitioner No.1 herein lodged a complaint on 22.07.2010 alleging that respondent No.2 has demolished the compound over the land bearing Sy.Nos.131, 132 and 47. The complaint lodged by the present petitioner in Crime No.84/2010 relates to three survey numbers. He would point out that the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against respondent No.2/complainant. Therefore, the present complaint alleging that petitioners have demolished the compound wall and consequent registration of crime is not only frivolous but the same is tainted with malafides.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that civil dispute was pending as on the date of registration of complaint by petitioners in Crime No.84/2010. Therefore, the Investigating Officer could not have entertained the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 who is already accused and is facing criminal proceedings pursuant to registration of crime in Crime No.84/2010. Same set of allegations which were attributed against respondent No.2 by petitioners in crime No.84/2010 are alleged in the present complaint which lead to registration of crime in Crime No.79/2