Ambanna vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No. 678/2009 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Aland.

I have heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader at the stage of admission itself.

The records disclose that petitioners are arrayed as accused persons in PCR No. 8/2009 on the file of the JMFC, Aland, making allegations that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s. 430 and 109 of IPC. As the learned Magistrate found that the allegations made in the complaint constitute such offences, the Magistrate has referred the complaint for investigation and report to the jurisdictional Police. After thorough investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet for the offences not only u/s. 430 and 109 of IPC, but also u/s. 147, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after going through the entire charge sheet papers took cognizance and issued process against the accused. The accused persons have also appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail and presently, the case is set down for hearing before charge. At this juncture, the present petition is filed.

Charge sheet was filed by police on 5.12.2009 and the Court has ordered to issue summons and the accused have appeared through counsel on 7.4.2011 before the Trial Court and are facing trial since then. Nearly for a period of three years, they kept quite and now they are before this Court in the year 2014 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.

That apart, the contents of the complaint and also the charge sheet papers discloses that the complainant Rachanna dug a borewell in his land bearing survey No. 13 drilled before 12-13 years prior to the incident and he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is stated that the accused persons who are wealthy persons and having enmity against the complainant and in order to grab the property as well as fruit garden, they formed into an unlawful assembly on 27.4.2009 and in pursuance of their conspiracy and at the instigation of A1 to A3 and A5, petitioner No. 4 committed mischief knowingly by diverting the water flowing for agricultural purpose of the complainant and thereby trespassed into the land and stopped supply of water. When the complainant questioned, the accused persons have also threatened the complainant with dire consequences of killing and burning him and thereby all the accused persons have committed the offences punishable u/s. 430 and 109 of IPC. Though there are some allegations that the accused have threatened the complainant with dire consequences, the complaint does mention the offence u/s. 506 of IPC. It is specifically stated that all the accused persons have conspired each other to commit such offences. Therefore, Police have incorporated Section 143 and 506 of IPC. When there are allegations made in the complaint that charge sheet has already been filed, in my opinion, the police after thorough investigation recorded the statements of some of the witnesses, i.e., CW-4 Siddareddy, CW-5 Sharanappa, who are cited as eye-witnesses to the incident. Further, added to that, when the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet papers if broadly looked into, it would constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. It is necessary to note here that the petitioners'' counsel has not produced in its entirety, the charge sheet before this Court. Nevertheless, the contents of the complaint and some of the available papers in the charge sheet discloses that the allegations constitute the offences against the petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of this Court reported in ILR Sri Parasmal Rathod Jain Vs. Chickpet Police Station and Another, , wherein this Court has held that-

"Prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings - Reference of a private complaint for investigation u/s. 156(3) of IPC. -Recording of additional statement by the police." This Court has further held that -

"When a private complaint filed u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate, is referred to jurisdictional Magistrate for investigation u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Police cannot take additional statement and enlarge the scope of investigation beyond the scope of the complaint referred to them for investigation and file charge sheet for altogether a different offence than the one alleged in the private complaint presented u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C." 7. I have carefully read the contents of the decision cited supra. However, I do not want to venture upon to go in detail with regard to the above said decision in comparison with the present case on hand. It would suffice to say that the above said decision is not applicable so far as this case is concerned for the simple reason that even on reading the complaint averments there are allegations that the accused persons have conspired and they have formed into an unlawful assembly, threatened the complainant with dire consequences and therefore, the provisions of Section 143, 147 and 506 of IPC are incorporated by the police. To constitute those offences, allegations are very much available in the private complaint itself. Therefore, nothing has been done by the Police except incorporating the provisions in accordance with the allegations made in the complaint itself. Therefore the above said ruling is not applicable to the case on hand.

Looking from any angle, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it is purely a case of civil in nature. The allegations of threatening the complainant and also committing offence u/s. 430 of IPC by preventing the owner of the property from using the water for his land, for which he is legally entitled to, all these factors, in my opinion, have to be thrashed out in detail by the Trial Court in order to ascertain whether the accused persons have committed such offences or not. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.