Mr. Umar Abdul Sattar Vahedna and Others vs State of Karnataka.

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. - All these four petitions are filed u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the same petitioners against the same respondents to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No. 4240/2009, C.C. No. 20038/2008, C.C. No. 3810/2009 and C.C. No. 7481/2009, respectively pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore.

Husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2 is the owner of premises No. 20, Benson A Cross, Benson Town, Bangalore. It comprises of a basement, ground plus two floors. The husband of respondent No.2 had executed power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1, to look after the property. The petitioner No. 1 along with other petitioners, his children occupied the property, in furtherance of the power of attorney executed by the husband of respondent No. 2. The husband of respondent No. 2 revoked the power of attorney given in favour of petitioner No. 1 and called upon him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the portion of the property in his occupation. But he did not. When an attempt was made by respondent No. 2 to evict the petitioners from the property, petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 25228/2009 on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the respondent No. 2 and her husband. Suit came to be decreed restraining the respondent No. 2, her husband from evicting the petitioners from the premises, without due process of law.

The respondent No. 2 was in occupation of the entire building, except the first floor, which was in occupation of the petitioners. Thereafter, tussle went on between petitioners and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 lodged four complaints against the petitioners for the incident that occurred on 3.4.2008 at 12.30, which came to be registered in Cr. No. 64/2008 of J.C. Nagar Police Station, for the incident that occurred on 18.09.2008 at 2.30 p.m., she filed complaint in Cr.No. 173/2008, for the incident that occurred on 12.12.2008 at 11.30 a.m., she filed complaint in Cr.No. 230/2008 and for the incident that occurred on 5.2.2009 at 4.00, Cr. No. 31/2009 came to be registered in J.C. Nagar Police Station. The incident in all the crimes is that the petitioners trespassed into the premises of respondent No. 2 and when they were questioned by respondent No. 2 on different dates, they abused her in filthy language, threatened her and caused mischief to the property. The police after investigation filed four different charge-sheet in all the aforesaid crimes against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/Ss. 448, 504, 506 r/w Section 34,IPC in C.C. No. 4240/2009, C.C. No. 20038/2008, C.C. No. 3810/2009 and C.C. No. 7481/2009, respectively before VIII ACMM, Bangalore.

The petitioners appeared in all those cases and filed an application for discharge. The application was partly allowed and they have been discharged for the charge u/S. 448 of IPC. The respondent No. 2/complaint preferred criminal petition Nos. 1329/2013, 1310/2013, 1311/2013 and 1312/2013, to quash the order of discharge passed by this Court. All the four petitions were dismissed by this Court. Special Leave Petitions filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order passed by this Court, and the aforesaid criminal petitions were also dismissed.

Now, to quash the proceedings in all the aforesaid criminal cases for the offences u/Ss. 504, 506, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, these four petitions came to be filed u/S. 482/Cr.P.C.

The submission of the counsel for the petitioners/accused, is that when the charge under Section 448 goes, other charges levelled against the petitioners u/Ss. 504, 506, 427, have no legs to stand independently. It is also submitted that no such incident as alleged by the respondent No. 2 had ever taken place and just to harass the petitioners and to forcibly evict them from the property, the false complaints have been lodged repeatedly by the respondent No. 2. Further, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature. The suit filed by the petitioners is decreed and the respondent No. 2 has been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner�s'' without due process of law, instead of taking recourse to law. For the eviction of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 went on lodging the complaint after complaint with an evil design to evict the petitioners from the property:

During the course of argument, the learned counsel submitted that the structure that was existing in the schedule property is no more in existence now. It has been demolished. The vacant land is in the possession of the respondent No. 2. All the complaints are stereotyped. The allegations are that when the respondent No. 2 went and asked the petitioners as to why they trespassed into her property, she was abused by them in filthy language and was threatened. The dispute is purely civil in nature. Competent Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the petitioners as against the respondent No. 2, restraining her from dispossessing the petitioners, without due process of law. In that case, the respondent No. 2 approaching the petitioners and calling upon them as to why they trespassed into her property, does not arise. This appears to be to compel the petitioners to vacate the premises. Moreover, they have been discharged for the main offence, with which they were charged, i.e., u/S. 448 of IPC. The other charges, are trivial in nature. Thus, having regard to the, background in which these crimes came to be registered, the gravity of the charges and that the building in occupation of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 is no more in existence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the Court. For all these reasons, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. No. 4240/2009, C.C. No. 20038/2008, C.C. No. 3810/2009 and C.C. No. 7481/2009, pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore are hereby quashed.