Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 503 (KAR)

PURNAKALA ALIAS POORNIMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-02-20

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 2. The Tahsildar, Khanapur has filed a complaint before the Khanapur Police Station against the Kreeda Mandal, Khanapur, making certain allegations. During the course of investigation, the police also found that the said Kreeda Mandal was granted with a lease hold rights over Survey No. 53/A measuring 5 guntas of land on ground rent of Rs. 1 for a period of 50 years. After this transaction, it appears, the said Kreeda Mandal has sold the said property in favour of the petitioners in connivance with each other and thereby both of them have committed an offence u/S. 420, I.P.C. 3. After filing of the charge sheet on 31.7.2013, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., and issued summons to the petitioner which is under challenge before this Court. 4. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the said proceedings in CC No. 597/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur, on the ground that even much earlier to the filing of this complaint and filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners, the petitioners have already approached this court in WP No. 62364/2010 (GM-RES) and this court vide order, dated 4.6.2010 has upheld the possession of the property by the petitioners. Further, this court while disposing of the said Writ Petition has observed that at paragraph 4 that though lease period came to an end in 1983 in favour of Kreeda Mandal, the respondent Tahsildar has not taken any steps to evict the said Kreeda Mandal. In the meanwhile, it is seen from the record that Kreeda Mandal has unauthorisedly sub-let certain portions and sold certain portions without any authority of law. Having come to such conclusion, this court has also observed at paragraph 5 that it is always open for the respondents to take necessary steps against the lessee Kreeda Mandal and the unauthorised occupants of land in question. Without taking necessary steps in accordance with law, the impugned action of the respondents in seizing the shop in question is illegal. Having come to such conclusion, this court has also observed at paragraph 5 that it is always open for the respondents to take necessary steps against the lessee Kreeda Mandal and the unauthorised occupants of land in question. Without taking necessary steps in accordance with law, the impugned action of the respondents in seizing the shop in question is illegal. Hence, this court has directed the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the said properties and shops in favour of the petitioners and also reserving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law and to recover the possession of the land in question including the shop purchased by the petitioners. 5. In another Writ Petition No. 60808/2011 (GM-RES) filed by the Kreeda Mandal, Khanapur, this Court vide order, dated 18.4. 2011 has recorded the presence of the Tahsildar, Khanapur, on the date of passing of the said order wherein the Tahsildar has submitted that he would personally ensure the opening of the lock on the Recreation Club premises, managed by the Kreeda Mandal. It is also seen from the records that the Kreeda Mandal, Khanapur has filed a suit in OS No. 90/2012 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur for declaration and for injunction against defendant in respect of the same property which was alleged to have been leased in favour of the said Kreeda Mandal. In the said suit, the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, Secretary, Department of Revenue, Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Division Belgaum, Tahsildar Khanapur are all parties. The said suit was filed in the year 2012, precisely on 19.4.2012. Subsequent to filing of the said suit, the CPI, Khanapur has filed a charge sheet on 31.7.2013 against this petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. 6. In view of the orders passed by this court in the above said Writ Petitions and also that the Kreeda Mandal filing a suit against the Government seeking for declaration, in my opinion, the criminal proceedings cannot be continued. Whether the said Kreeda Mandal and the petitioners have colluded with each other and there was any cheating to the Government can be thrashed out during the civil proceedings itself. Whether the said Kreeda Mandal and the petitioners have colluded with each other and there was any cheating to the Government can be thrashed out during the civil proceedings itself. If for any reason the court declares the Kreeda Mandal is the owner of the property, then the sale deeds executed by the Kreeda Mandal in favour of the petitioners may become valid and if for any reason, the court finds that there was an illegality committed by Kreeda Mandal and the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners as void and the same is the result of collusion between the Kreeda Mandal and the petitioners in order to grab the property of the Government by cheating the Government, then the Tahsildar can file appropriate complaint against the petitioners. When the Tahsildar, Khanapur was directed by this court in the above cited Writ Petitions that he can proceed in accordance with law to recover possession of the property from Kreeda Mandal and as well as these petitioners instead of doing that, he has ventured upon to file a criminal complaint so as to convert this civil litigation into criminal case for the present. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 597/2013 deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following order. 7. The petition is allowed. The case registered in CC No. 597/2013 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., and all further proceedings so far as it relates to these petitioners are hereby quashed. However, the respondent Tahsildar Khanapur is at liberty to file appropriate complaint if need be after disposal of the said suit filed by the Kreeda Mandal against the Government.