The court ruled that criminal proceedings based on civil disputes without clear fraudulent intent are an abuse of process, necessitating dismissal of such charges.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

Petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.747/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the IPC .

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioners are the residents of Ballari and are said to be living in the place for 60 to 70 years and are in the possession of all the necessary documents. It is their contention that they have been paying the Municipal taxes of the respective properties, which comes within the precincts of the City Corporation, Ballari. The second respondent is the complainant. A suit comes to be instituted by the second respondent and others in O.S.No.177/2019 seeking declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties mentioned therein, against the defendants, who are the petitioners herein, who are in possession of the properties, which are said to have been included in the schedule. The suit is instituted in the year 2019. Immediately thereafter, the second respondent sets the criminal law into motion, not by registering a complaint before the jurisdictional police, but by invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. It is then a private complaint comes to be registered in P.C.R.No.364/2019. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., for investigation into the matter, by an order dated 04.03.2020. The jurisdictional police on the directions of the learned Magistrate register a crime in Crime No.38/2020 for the offences punishable as afore-quoted. A writ petition comes to be filed challenging the registration of the crime. During the pendency of the said petition, the police conduct investigation and file their charge sheet. On the charge sheet so filed by the police, the case is registered before the concerned Court in C.C.No.747/2020. It is this, that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Abrar S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri S.S.Yadrami, learned senior counsel for Sri Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Sri Mohammed Abrar S., learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition or even the complaint before the learned Magistrate would submit that it is verbatim similar to what is registered before the Civil Court. It is the averment in the plaint before the civil Court that the petitioners are in possession of the suit scheduled properties, who have not vacated from the said properties, even after they are purchased by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant sought declaration and possession by filing the suit. The matter is purely civil in nature as the petitioners and their ancestors have been residing in the said properties for 60 to 70 years. The second respondent by setting the criminal law into motion is wanting to get eviction of these petitioners faster than the civil proceedings from the schedule properties. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of the law.

5. Per contra, Sri S.S.Yadrami, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant would submit that the police after investigation have filed an elaborate charge sheet. Findings in the charge sheet are that the petitioners have forged the documents and are in possession of the suit scheduled