1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2093 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Sri. Nagaraj,
Son of Sri. Vishwanath Vittalakar,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at KBS, Jokatte Junction,
Jokatte Taluk and District – 575 012.
…PETITIONER

(By Shri Nagendra Kumar K., Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,

Mangalore North Police Station,
Mangalore Taluk,
Mangalore District – 575 001.
Represented by its
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001.

2. Sri. Ravindra,
 2

Son of Late Dakoji Rao,

Aged about 44 years,
Residing at Usha Kiran Apartment,
“B” Block 306,
Falnir, Mangalore City,
Mangalore – 575 102.
…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri K.R.Keshav Murthy, State Public Prosecutor-II for

Respondent No.1/State;
Shri Jeevan K., Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.3507/2015 registered by the first respondent pending
before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class-II Court,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore as against the petitioner vide
Annexure-A.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,

the court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel

for the respondent No.2 as well as the learned State Public

Prosecutor.

The petition coming on for admission, is considered for

final disposal.
 3

2. It is stated that on 23.10.2014, a case was registered in

which it was stated that the second respondent who was the

complainant, had obtained permission from the court to register

and investigate the case. A non-cognizable case was registered

and thereafter, permission was obtained from the court in the

background that the complainant was a resident of an apartment

building and intended to start a business and therefore, had

taken an area measuring about 130 sq.ft. in the ground floor

under a lease agreement dated 20.10.2014 entered into with the

owner of the building and he claims to have constructed a

fabrication shop with the consent of the owner. The petitioner

who is the owner of a neighbouring premises is alleged to have

demolished the aluminium fabrication shop belonging to the

complainant, thereby causing loss to a sum of Rs.1 lakh and it

is in this background that a complaint was lodged. The first

respondent had applied for permission of the court to

investigate the matter. The first respondent thereafter had

registered a case and filed a case for an offence punishable

 4

under Section 427 read with Section 34 IPC. On 24.10.2014, a

written requisition was submitted to the Magistrate seeking

permission to add and investigate the case under the provisions

of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of

Properties Act, 1981, and permission was granted. Thereafter,

Section 120-B of the IPC was added, though without any

permission from the court and has investigated the case and

filed a charge-sheet. The case is now numbered as

C.C.No.3507/2015.

3. It is claimed by the petitioner that the second

respondent is a stranger to the premises and he is neither a

tenant nor has obtained permission from the owner to set up the

shop as claimed. The entire case is a false case to prevent the

petitioner from carrying on his profession as a Chartered

Accountant and the pending criminal case would damage his

assignments. It is a requirement of his clients that there are no

criminal cases pending against him. If the present case which is

a false case continues to be on the file of the court below, it

 5

would not enable him to seek renewal of his empanelment with

his clients and therefore, pleads urgency in considering this case

which is false on the face of it, since the complainant was called

upon to produce nine documents such as the Tenancy

Agreement, the licence to construct the fabrication work and

other documents which would have established his case prima

facie. However, no such particulars have been furnished except

a letter dated 7.11.2014 written to the first respondent in fact to

state that he does not have any of the particulars including the

tenancy agreement sought for by the first respondent. This

itself was sufficient to demonstrate that the case is a false one

and has no basis or foundation. The petitioner has even filed an

application before the court below seeking that further

proceedings be stayed till a decision in this petition.

4. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioner’s

remedy is before the court below itself, which would be in a

position to drop the proceedings in terms of Section 239 of

Cr.P.C. if there is no basis for the complaint as sought to be

 6

demonstrated and the court below would be in a more

vantageous position to address that circumstance. Therefore,

with a request to the court below to consider the defence set up

by the petitioner to the effect that there is no basis for the

complaint in the absence of any material to support the

complaint, is a valid contention which the court below shall

take note of and deal with the proceedings accordingly,

especially in the circumstance that the petitioner is a Chartered

Accountant and his professional career may be seriously

damaged in view of the pending criminal case. With that

observation, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-
JUDGE

KS