(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA., ADVOCATE) v. SRI. H.R. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

5. SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, R/AT SY NO.64/4, KADABAGERE VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 130. (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, AT MADANAYAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 162. REPRESENTED BY HCGP.

K. M. MASTHI KARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI MASTHI GOWDA R/AT NO.40, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NAGARAHOLE NAGARA, HEROHALLI DAKALE, VISHWANAEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1, SRI. H.R. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.02.2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.112/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA VIDE ANNEUXRE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21654 CRL.P No. 5233 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. The petitioners’ counsel submits that petitioner No.1 is no more. It is, therefore, obvious that the proceedings as against petitioner No.1 who was accused No.1 stood abated.

2. Petitioner No.1 herein had instituted a suit in O.S. No.592 of 2014 seeking for a declaration and injunction against one Neelakantaiah in respect of property bearing Sy.No.64/4 situated at Kadabagere village, Dasanapura Hobli, Neglamangala Taluk, measuring 01 acre 38 guntas.

The suit was decreed ex parte only insofar as the relief of injunction is concerned on 02.04.2016. The relief of declaration for ownership was however refused.

Being aggrieved by this decree, petitioner No.1 preferred a regular appeal in R.A. No.140 of 2019, but the said appeal was also dismissed by an order dated

09.03.2020. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21654 CRL.P No. 5233 of 2021

It is stated that as against the said dismissal of the appeal, a regular second appeal in RSA No.28 of 2021 has been filed and the same is pending adjudication.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that notwithstanding the fact that there was a decree in favour of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 herein K.M.Masti Karigowda proceeded to lodge a complaint contending that the petitioners had trespassed upon the suit property.

It was stated that respondent No.2 had purchased the property from one Dayananda Murthy—the son of Neelakantaiah, who was arrayed as defendant in the suit.

It may be pertinent to state here that during the pendency of the regular appeal and on the death of Neelakantaiah, his son—Dayananda Murthy (along with his mother and daughter) had come on record and was represented before the Appellate Court.

This therefore indicates that the vendor of the petitioner was aware of the fact that a decree of injunction - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21654 CRL.P No. 5233 of 2021 had been granted in favour of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 was litigating regarding his claim for declaration.

In the light of the fact that it is not in dispute that Dayananada Murthy had sold the property in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 2020, it is obvious that the complaint lodged in respect of the petitioners, who had already secured a decree, would be without any basis insofar as the allegation of trespass is concerned.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the decree of injunction obtained by petitioner No.1 is an ex parte’ decree and the proceedings have been initiated for setting aside the ex parte’ decree and the same is still pending.

Be that as it may, in the light of the fact that the petitioners had a decree of injunction against 2nd respondent’s vendor’s father and his vendor—Dayananda Murthy was also a party in the appeal, the proceedings - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21654 CRL.P No. 5233 of 2021 initiated for trespass and other alleged offences cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners shall stand quashed.

It is needless to state that nothing stated herein would be construed as rendering an opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties in other pending litigations.

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46