SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top