R. Chenraj Jain vs State of Karnataka and Others

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—1. The petitioner is the Chairman and a Trustee of Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Educational and Cultural Trust, which has established five institutions in Kanakapura Taluk. The Trust, through its Trustees, purchased two parcels of land situated at Sy. No. 64 of Jakkasandra Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on 16.10.1995, vide sale deed as at Annexure - C, from Siddaiah, i.e., husband of respondent No. 2. The Trust purchased another extent of 1.22 1/2 acres of land on 19.01.1996 vide sale deed as at Annexure - D. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub Division, passed an order dated 07.10.2002, in case No. LND: CR: 89:2000-01, vide Annexure - E and held that the aforesaid parcels of lands as the granted lands and that there is violation of conditions imposed in the grant and as a consequence directed the forfeiture of the said lands to the Government. However, by an order dated 01.10.2004, vide Annexure - F, the said Authority withdrew the order passed on 07.10.2002 vide order as at Annexure - E. An appeal having been filed by respondent No. 2, before the Deputy Commissioner, in case No. LNR/11/08-09, by an Order dated 01.02.2012 vide Annexure - G, the appeal was allowed and aforesaid order as at Annexure - E was set aside and it was held that the legal representatives of Siddaiah are entitled to re-grant of land. Said order was assailed in W.P. No. 17838/2012. An interim order of stay was passed on 07.06.2012. Subsequently, i.e., on 06.11.2013, writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to decide the appeal after giving opportunity to the parties. Alleging that the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties purchased as per the aforesaid sale deeds was sought to be interfered with, the Trust lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent, against the 2nd respondent and her relatives on 27.05.2012. The Trust filed O.S. 201/2012 in the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura, against the 2nd respondent and her relatives, to pass a decree of perpetual injunction and restrain the defendants from interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. An order of temporary injunction was passed against the defendants therein, on 31.05.2012 vide Annexure - H.

The 2nd respondent having lodged a complaint on 09.06.2012, vide Annexure - B, the 1st respondent registered FIR in Crime No. 153/2012 for the offences punishable under Ss. 427, 506 read with S. 34 IPC and S. 3(1)(v) & (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ''the Act''), To quash the said FIR of the 1st respondent, as at Annexure - A, pending on the file of the District & Sessions Court, Ramanagara, this petition was filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C.

Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the complaint lodged vide Annexure - B does not show the ingredients of the alleged offences. He submitted that there being a suit pending in the Civil Court and also another proceeding pending before the quasi judicial authority, the question of wrongful dispossession of the 2nd respondent from the land is imaginary. It was contended that the Civil Court having granted an order of temporary injunction against the 2nd respondent, to overcome the same, the complaint in question was filed by abusing the process of law. Learned counsel submitted that the 1st respondent has mechanically registered the FIR, without taking into consideration the proceedings pending between the 2nd respondent and the Trust, in which the petitioner is the Trustee-cum-Chairman. Learned advocate submitted that the complaint lodged being with a view to arm twist the Trust and its office bearers and there being gross abuse of process of law, is liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision in GORIGE PENTAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS, , (2008) 12 SCC 531 and also few decisions of High Court of Delhi.

Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand submitted that, the complaint lodged vide Annexure - B and FIR registered vide Annexure - A is required to be investigated, as an attempt was made to enter upon the property held and possessed by the 2nd respondent and that she was also abused by taking her caste name. Learned counsel submitted that this petition being premature is liable to be dismissed.

Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP, submitted that in view of the complaint filed vide Annexure - B, containing the allegations falling under Ss. 427, 506 IPC and S. 3(1)(v) & (x) of the Act, FIR vide Annexure - A was registered and investigation was undertaken. Learned counsel submitted that this petition being premature is liable to be dismissed.

Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - G was assailed in W.P. No. 17838/2012. On 07.06.2012, the impugned order therein was stayed and subsequently, the writ petition was allowed on 06.11.2013 and the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner.

The Trust has instituted O.S. 201/2012 in the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC at Kanakapura, to pass decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property, against the 2nd respondent and other legal representatives of the deceased Siddaiah. An order of temporary injunction was passed on 31.05.2012 vide Annexure - H. It is after passing of the said interim orders, a complaint vide Annexure - B was filed on 09.06.2012 by the 2nd respondent and the FIR in question was registered by the 1st respondent. The complaint vide Annexure - B having been filed after the passing of the said interim orders is motivated to cause harassment to the petitioner.

In GORIGE PENTAIAH''s case (supra), Apex Court has held as follows:

"6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27-5-2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

If any abuse of the process leading to unnecessary harassment or injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then, to prevent such harassment or injustice on account of the abuse of process of law, inherent power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised, as is clear from the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) R.P. KAPUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, , AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) NAGAWWA Vs. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI, , (1976) 3 SCC 736, (iii) STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. L. MUNISWAMY, , (1977) 2 SCC 699, (iv) JANATA DAL Vs. H.S. CHOWDHARY, , (1992) 4 SCC 305, (v) STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BHAJAN LAL, , 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426 and (vi) ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. Vs. MOHD. SHARAFUL HAQUE, , (2005) 1 SCC 122. From the ratio of law laid down in the said decisions, it is clear that inherent power should be exercised for the advancement of justice i.e., when abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court.

In view of the pendency of O.S. 201/2012 and Appeal No. LNR/11/08-09 between the Trust and the 2nd respondent and her relatives, there is need for exercise of the inherent powers and quash the impugned proceeding.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the FIR dated 09.06.2012 registered by respondent No. 1 in Crime No. 153/2012 pending on the file of the District & Sessions Court, Ramanagara is quashed. However, it is made clear that the quashing of the impugned proceeding would not stand in the way of O.S. No. 201/2012 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura and the appeal No. LNR/11/08-09, pending on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, being decided in accordance with law. All the contentions of both parties, in the said proceedings, remain open for consideration and decision.