Court of Karnataka v. R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

(BY SRI. RAVI H K., ADVOCATE) BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:1751 CRL.P No. 9066 of 2022 AND:

THE STATE BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 036.

ANTHONY RAJ S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.79, SEEGEHALLI, A/R/NILAYA, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 049. (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.50366/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE X A.C.M.M AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 323, 427, 448, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.50366/2019 pending on the file of X ACMM, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.580/2017 registered by K.R.Puram Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1751 CRL.P No. 9066 of 2022 under Sections 341, 323, 427, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 served unrepresented.

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2 filed on 21.10.2017, the Police regis0tered the FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the investigation, the Police have charge sheeted by adding some more Sections. It is alleged by the complainant that on

21.10.2017, when he was at home, he received a phone call from one Pinto-CW.4 that the accused persons came in the motorcycle along with the JCB and demolishing the congress office building which is in possession and he was a care taker of the same. Immediately, he came there and questioned the accused persons where they have said to be threatened the complainant with dire consequences saying that they would kill and burry him with the help of JCB. Hence, he lodged the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1751 CRL.P No. 9066 of 2022 complaint and charge sheet has been filed which is under challenge.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is a civil suit is pending between the brother of the complainant and the petitioners, where a civil suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.577/2013 and obtained the injunction order against the brother of the complainant namely Anand S/o Joseph. In spite of obtaining injunction, the said Anand demolished the compound wall, hence, he also filed complaint against the brother of the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 447 and other offences which is registered as Crime No.579/2017 and as a counter blast, this complaint has been filed through the brother of the said accused Anand. Absolutely there is no ingredient to attract the provisions. Hence, prayed for quashing the charge sheet.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there are eye witnesses and photographs apart from the panchanama which reveals the offence committed by the accused. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1751 CRL.P No. 9066 of 2022

After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals, of course, the petitioner No.1 is said to be filed a suit against the brother of respondent No.2 in O.S.No.577/2013 in respect of the property bearing No.30/1A3 (New No.30/1A15) of Seegehalli which is altogether different from the property of the petitioner where the respondent No.2 said to be having a party office in 30/1A3 of the property. The order passed by the Civil Court clearly reveals the injunction order was obtained not to damage further compound wall erected by the plaintiff in the said suit and subsequently, a complaint was filed against the said defendant No.2 that he has said to be damaged the compound wall by violating the court order. But the property is altogether different from the property where the petitioners were entered into and damaged the office by demolishing the party office and also they said to be threatened the complainant with criminal interpretation that they will also kill him and burry in the land with the help of the JCB. There is a cognizable case made out against the petitioners. The photographs reveals the office has been demolished and so much property has been damaged by the petitioners which is punishable under Sections 427 and 448 of - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1751 CRL.P No. 9066 of 2022 IPC apart from 506 of IPC. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference of this Court at this stage.

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT:SK