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.