Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21497
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
MRITYUNJAYASWAMI S/O. KOTRAYYA KESARALLIMATH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103634 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. HEMANTGJYNAR K, HAVARAGI
For the Respondents: SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL
A criminal FIR cannot proceed when a civil dispute exists regarding the same property and an injunction order is in place.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Petition filed to quash proceedings for offences punishable under sections 427, 447 of IPC - Petitioners claim joint ownership of the disputed property - Existence of civil dispute and injunction order - Court quashed the FIR considering the civil nature of the dispute and sufficient grounds to invoke inherent powers. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The offence under Section 427 IPC is non-cognizable and required compliance with Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR - Non-compliance leads to quashing of proceedings. (Paras 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners are husband and wife; first informant is the father of the first petitioner; a civil suit involving partition of family property is ongoing. An FIR was lodged alleging the petitioners had trespassed onto the property. There was existing injunction against alienation of the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to quash the FIR due to the nature of the allegations relative to the civil dispute and pending legal proceedings on the matter.
Issues: Whether the FIR was properly registered in the context of ongoing civil litigation regarding the same property and an existing injunction order?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proceedings held against the petitioners could not stand due to the ongoing civil disputes and the nature of the allegations being not substantiated by the criminal law under the current circumstances.
Result: The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interrelations of parties and ownership claims regarding a property dispute. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion of the parties involved and pending civil litigation. (Para 3) |
| 3. quashing of proceedings based on civil dispute context. (Para 8) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. The petitioners are before this Court, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.92 of 2022, registered by Shiggaon Police Station, Shiggaon Circle, Haveri District, for the offences punishable under Section 427 , 447 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge Senior Division and CJM, Shiggaon.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the husband of second petitioner and respondent No.2 who is the first informant is the father of the first petitioner and the father-in-law of the second petitioner. There is a civil dispute between the parties in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of dispute. Petitioner No.1 is the co-owner of the property and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC does not get attracted against him. There is an order of injunction operating in the suit. He accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the petition. He submits that the property in question is the absolute property of the second son of the first informant. The petitioners do not have any right over the said property. However, he does not dispute that the suit in respect of the very same property filed by petitioner No.1 seeking partition is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Civil Court and in the said suit, there is an order of injunction operating, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.
5. The material on record would go to show that the petitioners and the first informant are closely related. The first informant is the father of the first petitioner and the father-in-law of the second petitioner. It appears that the first petitioner has filed O.S. No.1 of 2020 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Laxmeshwar, against his family members and in the said suit, respondent No.2 herein is arrayed as defendant No.1. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the family properties and the land in question bearing Survey No.345/6 is one of the schedule properties in the said suit. It is not in dispute that there is an order of temporary injunction operating in the said suit restraining the original defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.
6. The allegation in the first formation is that the petitioners herein had trespassed into the land bearing Survey No.345/6, which is the subject matter of O.S. No.1 of 2020, when Shashidhar Yaligar, to whom the aforesaid property was leased, was cultivating the aforesaid land on 23.07.2020. It is under these circumstances, FIR has been registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1 has filed a suit for partition with respect to the very same property seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and according to the petitioners, the said property is a joint family property. The aforesaid suit filed for partition is still pending consideration before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it cannot be said that the accused have trespassed into the land, when they have claimed that the said property is a joint family property in which petitioner No.1 has a share.
7. So far as the offence punishable under Section
427 of the IPC is concerned, the same is non-cognisable in nature and therefore, without complying with the requirement of Section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C ., FIR could not have been registered against the accu
