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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 47057

- 1 -

CRL.P No. 102099 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102099 OF 2015 (482)

BETWEEN:

1.

LAXMINARAYAN BABU

S/O BABU NAMADHARI,

AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

2.

SMT.SRIDEVI

W/O LAXMINARAYAN NAMADHARI,

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

BOTH 1 & 2 ARE

R/O: KANASUR VILLAGE,

SIDDAPUR TALUK,

DSIT: KARWAR.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R M JAVED.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH SIDDAPUR PS

REP BY SPP HIGH COURT

DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR PENDING ON THE

FILE OF COURT OF THE JMFC SIDDAPUR, IN CONNECTION WITH

SIDDAPUR P. S. CRIME NO 179/2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE U/S 353, 448, 427, 188 506 R/W 34 IPC.

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 102099 of 2015

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed

to take notice for the respondent-State.”

Heard Sri R.M.Javed, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent-State.

3.

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

with the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most humbly

prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

to call for the records and:

a) Quash the complaint and FIR pending on the file

of

COURT

OF

THE

JMFC,

SIDDAPUR,

in

connection

with

Siddapur

P.S

Crime

No.

179/2014 for the alleged offences punishable

U/s. 353, 448, 427, 188, 506 R/w.34 IPC, and

b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble

court deems fit in the facts and circumstances

of the case, in the interest of justice and

equity.”

- 3 -

4.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

It

is

contended

that

the

respondent

in

O.S.No.57/2014 is the Panchayath Development Officer of

Tharehalli-Kanasur Grampanchayath and the petitioners

are tenants in respect of bus stand canteen building

bearing No.237. He was conducting the business of

canteen in the said building for the last 12 years in the

name and style of ‘Makarajyothi’. It is further contended

that in respect of the rent payable to the said premises,

petitioners are in arrears of Rs.3,64,000/- and despite

sufficient notice being given, they had not cleared the

arrears of rent. In that regard, a Civil suit was also filed

which was dismissed by the Civil Court, Siddapura.

Subsequent to that, he had filed an appeal to the appellate

Court at Sirsi and again the said appeal also dismissed.

Accordingly, as per the directions of the Executive Officer,

necessary directions were issued and on 09.12.2014 in the

presence of Taluka Executive Officer and other sub-staff,

all the articles found in building bearing No.237 were

seized and the building was sealed by the complainant.

- 4 -

However, on 13.12.2014 at about 8.30 a.m., he received a

telephone call from the official superiors that the

petitioners have broke open the lock and they have

illegally trespassed into the building bearing No.237 in the

guise of an order passed by the Civil Court in respect of

the building bearing No.246. A copy of the order passed

in respect of the building bearing No.246 was also pasted

on the said building, as such the complaint was lodged.

Immediately action was also taken and panchanama was

conducted, wherein the interim order which was pasted on

the

building

was

also

seized.

Thereafter,

police

investigated the matter and issued summons. Petitioners

have appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate and

obtained bail and thereafter filed the present petition with

the aforesaid relief.

5.

In the petition, following grounds have been

raised, which reads as under:-

It is submitted that the case of the prosecution

itself is false and is registered on wrong notion.

Even in the entire charge-sheet, which the police

- 5 -

have submitted has nothing to do with the case

and no case is made out against any of the

accused. Therefore the case and charge-sheet is

false and ought to be rejected.

It is submitted that the petitioners had already

filed a suit against the PDO and he is being duly

represented by the counsel who is defending the

rights of him. Therefore it is clear that the

respondents were aware about the order passed

by the civil court granting status quo to the

petitioner since they were residing in the said suit

schedule property. Therefore rather the act

committed by the respondent is contempt of court

and disobedience of the order of the civil and they

are liable for the charges. Hence on this ground

also the complaint and FIR may be quashed in the

interest of justice.

It is submitted that the petitioner through RTI

had sought reply from the Tahasildar, Siddapur

and Asst. Commissioner, Sirsi Sub Division,

regarding the order passed by them or any other

authority to take away or petitioner. disturb the

possession of the Asst Commissioner vide letter

dt.28.

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