2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 51125
- 1 -
CRL.P No. 100015 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103561 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100015 OF 2019 (482)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103561 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P.NO.100015/2019
BETWEEN:
SATYANARAYANAPPA,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA HARAPANAHALLI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KUKANOOR, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDALINGAPPA,
S/O SHIVABASAPPA LANGATI
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: KUKANOOR, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE:583232.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Location:
DHARWAD
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 100015 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103561 of 2018
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2018
PASSED C.C.NO.59/2016 (P.C.R.NO.01/2016) U/S 245 & 246
OF CR.P.C. BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT,
YELBURGA INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ACCUSED NO.1
THEREBY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ACCUSED
NO.1 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 464, 465,
109, 120(B), 209, 217, 120(A), 121(A), 466, 471, 474, 218,
219 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
IN W.P.NO. 103561/2018
BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O DASHARATH RATHOD
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: P.D.O.
R/O KUKNOOR, TQ: YALBURGA
DIST: KOPPAL.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
2.
SIDDHALINGAPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA LAGHVI
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS
R/O KUKNOOR TQ. YELBURGA
DIST:KOPPAL
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF
- 3 -
CRL.P No. 100015 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103561 of 2018
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2018 SO FAR AS
FRAMING
CHARGE
AGAINST
THE
PETITIONER
IN
C.C.No.59/2016 BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
YELBURGA
AT:
YELBURGA
VIDE
ANNEXURE-E
AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.No.59/2016 BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, YELBURGA AT:YELBURGA AND ETC.
THIS CRMINAL PETITION AND WRIT PETITION COMING
ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records on admission.
The present petitions are filed with the
following prayers :-
In Crl.P.No.100015/2019:-
"To set aside the order dated 26.02.2018
passed in C.C.No.59/2016 (P.C.R.No.01/2016)
under Section 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C., by the
learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Yelburga
insofar as it relates to accused No.1 thereby
dismiss the complaint against accused No.1
registered for the offences punishable under
Section 420, 464, 465, 109, 120B, 209, 217,
- 4 -
120A, 121A, 466, 471, 474, 218, 219 r/w Section
34 of IPC.”
In W.P.No.103561/2018:-
“Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order
dated 26.02.2018 so far as framing charge
against the petitioner in C.C.No.59/2016 before
the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Yelburga at
Yelburga vide Annexure-E and consequently
quash the proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C.No.59/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Yelburga at Yelburga.”
3.
The brief facts of the case are as under :-
Siddalingappa-respondent
filed
a
private
complaint before J.M.F.C., Yelburga for the offences
punishable under Section 420, 464, 465, 109, 120B,
209, 217, 120A, 121A, 466, 471, 474, 218, 219 r/w
Section 34 of IPC. The said complaint was registered
and the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn
statement of the said Siddalingappa and considered
the documents which were produced by him and took
cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directed
- 5 -
the
office
to
register
the
case
against
the
respondent
for
the
aforesaid
offences
in
C.C.No.59/2016.
Thereafter,
petitioner
herein
appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate for
hearing before charge and the same was recorded by
the learned trial Magistrate. During the course of the
evidence before charge, the complainant is examined
as PW1 and one Sharanavva is examined as PW2 and
Abhay Kumar as PW3 and documents were marked
by
the
petitioner
showing
that
the
lands
in
Sy.No.67/AA and Sy.No.67E of Kuknur village was
sought to be developed by the father of the
petitioner at the first instance and applied for
conversion of the land and got approved and a
layout from Karnataka Town and Country Planning
Department in the year 1989. After the layout plan
was approved, the land was divided into house sites
as per the plan sanctioned by the Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act and were sold to the public
- 6 -
at large by the father of the petitioner herein.
Subsequent thereto father of the petitioner got the
plan modified instead of getting it approved from the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Department,
got it approved through the Administrator, Gram
Panchayath
of
Kuknur
village
and
altered
the
position of the sites which was approved by the
Town Planning Department in the year 1989. On
such modified plan, he created some more sites and
sold the same to the different persons other than
the persons who were already purchased the land as
per the original sanctioned plan approved by the
Town Planning Department. Whereby, the rights of
the purchasers of the sites got altered and a place
meant for public park was also got converted into
sites by the alleged modified plan and therefore, the
complainant and others approached the Civil Court
and
filed
a
suit
at
the
first
instance
in
O.S.No.13/2015. However, by filing an application,
- 7 -
under Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C., they withdrew the
suit. The learned trial Magistrate while allowing the
said application, specifically observed that the suit if
any to be filed by Siddalingappa and others must be
on a new cause of action. Nevertheless when the
said suit was pending, a private complaint came to
be filed by the respondent herein seeking action
against Satyanarayana (petitioner) and Suresha for
the aforesaid offences. It is the specific case of the
complainant that the documents are fabricated in
order
to
justify
the
high
handedness
of
the
petitioner in modifying the sanctioned plan from
Town Planning Department, Dharwad in the year
19