C.B. Monnappa (Tagoo) and Others vs V.P. Ravindran and Others

Rathnakala, J.—Petitioners are arrayed as accused in the criminal case registered on the complaint of 1st respondent herein. Though served 1st respondent is not represented.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for R-2.

Complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein and also the PSI and ASI alleging that he is the absolute owner in possession of lands of Kottoli village as detailed in the complaint. Accused persons have no right in the said properties. On 16.12.2013 A-1 & 2 (petitioners herein) forcibly trespassed into the property with the active illegal support of other accused persons committed theft of standing coffee crop, abused the complainant filthily and threatened with dire consequences and damaged the coffee plants and the fence, thereby caused damage of Rs. 2 lakhs. Though he lodged the complaint to the police, instead of giving protection they colluded with A-1 & 2 and filed false case in FIR No. 165/2013 against the complainant. He approached the Home Minister of the State so also the Hon''ble Minister for Home Affairs, Government of India for protection on which necessary direction is issued to the police.

On presentation of the complaint, learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses and ordered to register the criminal case for the offences punishable under Sec. 447 , 427 , 379 , 504 , 506 R/w 34 of IPC and summons for the petitioners.

Sri. Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant has deliberately suppressed the material facts in the complaint. In fact on the same allegation, he had filed Civil Suit No. 8/2014 and in respect of the very same property referred to in his complaint ex-parte order of temporary injunction was passed in his favour. Subsequently he allowed the suit to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 18.2.2015. He had filed a suit for partition in respect of the very same property in O.S. No. 98/99 against his family members which came to be dismissed and the matter is now pending before this court in RFA No. 1182-83/2012.

Title of the plaintiff to the suit property is unsettled till now. That being so, question of committing offence punishable under Sec. 447 of IPC would not arise. The dispute is civil in nature which is given criminal complex that too after a period of one year and three months. Had he presented the entire facts pertaining to the civil litigation, it is doubtful that the court would have taken cognizance of the offence alleged under Sec. 447 of IPC. The other allegations i.e., punishable under Sec. 447 , 379 , 504 and 506 of IPC will not be attracted, when there is no case made out in respect of main allegation under Sec. 447 of IPC itself.

Learned Addl. SPP while supporting the order of the learned Magistrate submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter on the basis of the complaint averments, documents and also the statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. When there is no procedural lapse, submission made on behalf of the petitioner can be a good defense during the trial and this court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the incident dated 16.12.2013, criminal case is registered against the respondent No. 1-complainant herein. He is charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sec. 427 , 506 , 502 and 447 of IPC, charges are already framed and the trial is in progress.

Without there being explanation in respect of delay of more than one year in lodging the complaint or an omnibus statement of the complainant, trial court has taken cognizance of the offence. Nature of the allegations made in the complaint itself discloses that the dispute is civil in nature. After civil suit is dismissed this complaint is filed despite the fact that in respect of very same incident complainant himself is arrayed as accused in the said case. Making an effort to convert purely civil dispute into criminal case is deprecated by the Apex Court in the judgment of G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . Allowing the criminal case to continue is nothing but abuse of process of law and same is liable to be quashed.

The petition is allowed. Order of the learned Magistrate dated 25.6.2015 at Annexure-A is quashed and consequently criminal proceedings are quashed.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. 2/15 does not survive for consideration, hence, stands disposed of.