Criminal Petition No. 9949 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9949 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. R Y NAGARAJU S/O LATE YOGANARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, U-37, 14TH CROSS, GROUND FLOOR, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003. 2. PRASANNA DEEKSHITH S/O VISWANATH DIKSHIT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.138, 4TH CROSS, 1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.
Legal Reasoning
3. SMT. PRATHIBHA W/O R Y NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, U-37 14TH CROSS, GROUND FLOOR, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003. 4. SMT. KAMALA, W/O PRAHLADA M S AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 173, RAGHUNATHAPURA, SHIVAPURA, DODDABALLAPURA Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 561 203. 5. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O S SHITHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 183, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, NEAR PARK, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560085. 6. SATISHKUMAR S/O NARAYAN N., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT U-31 14TH CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003. 7. SRINIVASAN, S/O G NAGENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 61, 4TH CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560003. (BY SRI. A N RADHA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE, BENGALURU - 560003 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560001. 2. K L VIDYASHANKAR S/O LATE K L NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 RESIDING AT NO.181/2, 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MADHURANAGARA NAGRABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560072. (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K L VIDYASHANKAR, PARTY IN PERSON/R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 15.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII ACMM, BENGALURU AND QUASHF THE PROCEEDING IN CC.NO.3522/2024 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ACMM, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES P//S 448,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate, wherein the ‘B’ report submitted by the police was rejected, the protest petition filed by the complainant was accepted, and cognizance was taken of offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The complainant lodged an FIR stating that he had been a tenant under petitioner No.1 since 2014. It is alleged that petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and another individual started demanding exorbitant amounts for rent, water, and electricity bills. On 04.12.2016, accused Nos.1 to 3 and another allegedly trespassed into the complainant’s house, abused him in filthy language, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 threatened him with dire consequences, and pushed him to the ground. 3. After conducting an investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report, stating that the complainant had not produced any substantive evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners. The complainant then filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and perusing both the ‘B’ report and the protest petition, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking relief. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature but has been given a criminal aspect. He contended that rejecting the ‘B’ report and accepting the protest petition was contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha & Another, reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725. He further submitted that in S.C. No.527/2017, petitioner No.1 had filed a suit for eviction against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 subsequently filed CRP No.24/2018, and both parties filed a joint memo before this Court, wherein respondent No.2 undertook to vacate the subject property. However, respondent No.2 failed to do so voluntarily, compelling petitioner No.1 to file Ex. No.1106/2018 to execute the decree. 5. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the police had not conducted a proper investigation, as they failed to collect the material evidence produced by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 complainant along with his sworn statement, which clearly establishes that the petitioners criminally trespassed into the house, abused him, and threatened him with dire consequences. 6. The learned Magistrate, after considering the sworn statement, rightly passed the impugned order, which does not warrant interference in this petition. Accordingly, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 sought dismissal of the petition. 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 8. It is undisputed that the complainant is a tenant of the subject property owned by petitioner No.1. The alleged incident took place on 04.12.2016, after which the complainant filed a suit in O.S. No.8110/2016, seeking a mandatory injunction to restrain petitioner No.1 from dispossessing him without following due process of law. The said suit was decreed. Similarly, petitioner No.1 filed a suit for eviction against the complainant, which was also decreed and later confirmed by this Court. A joint memo was filed, in which the complainant undertook to vacate the subject property and pay arrears of rent. However, the complainant failed to abide by the terms of the joint memo, prompting the petitioner to file an execution petition to enforce the decree and take possession of the property. 9. The police submitted a ‘B’ report, stating that the complainant had not produced any substantive evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners. Before the Trial Court, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 complainant did not examine any independent witnesses to substantiate his claims. Other than his self-serving statement, there is no substantive evidence against the petitioners. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in Dr. Ravikumar (supra) and relied on the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2019) 8 SCC 27, and held as under : to itself the Magistrate. " 42..... if the Magistrate was convinced on the basis of the consideration of the final report, the statements under Section 161 of the Code that no prima facie case is made out, certainly the Magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint. The fact that he may have jurisdiction in a case to treat the protest petition as a complaint, is a different matter. Undoubtedly, if he treats the protest petition as a complaint, he would have to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code if the latter section also commends In other words, necessarily, the complainant and his witnesses would have to be examined. No doubt, depending upon the material which is made available to a Magistrate by the complainant in the protest petition, it may be capable of being relied on in a particular case having regard to its inherent nature and impact on the conclusions in the final report. That is, if the material is such that it persuades the court to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer, cognizance could be taken under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code for which there is no necessity to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of the Code. But as the Magistrate could not be compelled to treat the protest petition as a complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file a fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Code or Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code.." 10. In the present case, the learned Magistrate was required to first reject the ‘B’ report by recording the sworn - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10494 CRL.P No. 9949 of 2024 statement before taking cognizance. However, the learned Magistrate simultaneously rejected the ‘B’ report, accepted the protest petition, and took cognizance, which is contrary to the guidelines laid down in Dr. Ravikumar (supra). Under such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. The dispute between the parties in relation to termination of tenancy, however, given a criminal texture. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.3522/2024 pending on the file of the learned VIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 122