Erappa & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.190/2018 for the offence punishable under

Section 447 of IPC on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant in the complaint dated 02.05.2018 made an allegation that she is having 4 acres of land in

Sy.No.156 situated at Puttandooru Agrahara, which was purchased on 09.09.2005 from one Smt.Jayalakshmamma and she is having revenue records

in her name and she had earlier lodged the complaint in this regard. However, the petitioners herein and others claims the right in respect of Sy.No.42

and even though the complainant was in possession, these petitioners had committed an offence of trespass and fenced the land and also made an

attempt to do galata. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the FIR and now the matter is under investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners are the owners of the property bearing Sy.No.42, in respect of

which earlier a civil suit was filed and there is a decree in their favour. The revenue entries were made in their names, which came to be challenged

before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 02.08.2017 by setting aside the entries made therein. The petitioners have

not trespassed into the land of the complainant and they are having the property in Sy.No.42. By using the powers which the complainant is having, a

false case has been registered against the petitioners herein. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that these petitioners came and fenced the land belong to the complainant and hence,

the complaint is lodged, on which the police have registered the case and now the same is under investigation. Hence, there cannot be any quashing of

FIR and matter requires to be investigated.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the matter is under investigation and hence, the same requires

to be investigated.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and also on perusal of the complaint, the specific allegation is made in the complaint dated 02.05.2018 that

these petitioners without any right have trespassed into the land belong to the complainant and also that they fenced the property and made galata. It is

important to note that the matter is under investigation. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that even though the complaint was lodged

on 02.05.2018, the police have not filed the charge sheet. When the allegation of trespass is made in the complaint, the police have to probe the

matter.

The Apex Court in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 held that

the High Court should not venture to collect the evidence as an Appellate Court or interfere with the investigation, which is the domain of the

investigating officer. The Court has to look into the contents of the complaint whether the complaint discloses the prima facie commission of the

offence. On perusal of the complaint, the specific allegation is made that the petitioners had trespassed and fenced the property which belong to the

complainant. No doubt, there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the land in Sy.No.156 and Sy.No.42 and also there is a decree in favour

of the petitioners in respect of Sy.No.42. The fact as to whether the petitioners had trespassed into the property bearing Sy.No.42 or Sy.No.156,

cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same has to be probed by the investigating officer. Hence, I am of the opinion

that it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it requires investigation.

It is noticed by this Court that the case was registered in the year 2018 and till date, the final report has not been filed. Hence, the investigating

officer to be directed to file the final report as early as possible. However, the petitioners are given liberty to approach this Court after filing of the

charge sheet, if need arises.

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The petition is hereby rejected reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if need arises, after filing of the final report. The I.O. is

directed to file the final report as early as possible.

In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A., if any does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.