Chargesheet that do not contain any offences punishable under sections of IPC are taken to trial, it amounts to abuse of the Court process: Karnataka High Court
The disputes existed between the developer and apartment owners in regard to issues related to parking areas. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar in the matter of Praneth and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr [CP NO. 3970/2019].  The facts of the case were associated with a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings on the file of A.C.J.M in Bengaluru Rural District. In connection to the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 with Section 34 of IPC, the petitioners no 1 to 5 were accused and had to face trials. It was submitted by respondent no 2 that the petitioners abused and threatened him. It seemed that petitioner 1 was the developers and other petitioners were his workers.  It was complained by the petitioner that respondent 2 had removed the parking boards in cellar portions and when petitioner 2 questioned him, he was threatened to be killed by respondent 2. It was also reported that an injunction suit was also filed by petitioner 1 against some of the residents of the apartment. FIR was registered based on the complaints made by the petitioner 2. It was found that relating to the issue of parking area and payment of maintenance charges, the dispute between the developers and apartment owners rose. The Hon’ble Court examining all the submissions stated that no offences under the said Sections were punishable according to the FIR. As no offences against the petitioners were forthcoming, then the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed.  Thus, The Hon’ble Court ruled out that “The petition is allowed. Proceedings against C.C. No. 466/2019 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGAL URU DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 BEFOR E THE HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE SREEN IVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3970 OF 2019 Praneth S o D.V.Sekhar Aged about 30 years Proprietor M s Sekhar Developers Having its office at #E218 BM 304 Yamunotri Apartment G.M.Palya Bengaluru 560075. 2. Manishankar S o D.Ganesh Babu Aged about 35 years R at Sekhar Hyde Park Immadihalli Whitefield Bengaluru East Taluk 560066. Bharath S o N.Prabakar Aged about 26 years R at 37 2 Whitefield Near Globel School KRS Garden Channsandra Praveen S o Venkataramanappa Aged about 28 years R at No.101 3 r d Main Road Basavanapura Main Road HAL Bengaluru. …Petitioners 2 :: Vasuki S o Seetharam Aged about 24 years R at No.32 First Floor A.R.Homes Opp. to SBI Subbaiah Layout Branch Doddanekundi Marathalli State of Karnataka By Whitefield Police Station Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru 560066. By Sri Rajashekar S. Advocate) Sujeeth C Pani R at Flat No. C 305 Sekhar Hyde Park Immadihalli Whitefield Bengaluru East Taluk 560066. By Sri Rohith B.J. HCGP for R1 R2 served) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings C.C.No.466 2019 on file of the A.C.J.M. Benglauru Rural District for the offences punishable under Sections 341 504 506 read with 34 of IPC. This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day the Court made the following: 3 :: Heard Sri Rajashekar S learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice but there is no representation on his behalf. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings C.C.No.466 2019 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru. The petitioners being accused No.1 to 5 in the said proceedings are facing trial in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 341 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of The second respondent lodged an FIR with the police on 18.02.2018 alleging that the first petitioner and others abused and threatened him of dire consequences. IPC. 4 :: It appears that the first petitioner is the developer of the apartment namely Sekhar Hydepark and that the petitioners 2 to 5 are the first petitioner’s workers. On 19.02.2018 the second petitioner made a complaint against the second respondent to the police stating that the respondent and others parking boards the cellar portion of apartment and when they were questioned the second petitioner was threatened to be killed. Similarly one Madhusudhan Naidu the staff member of the first petitioner made a complaint to the police against the second respondent and others in regard to operating STP unit in the apartment. Based on the complaints made by the second petitioner and one Madhusudhana Naidu FIRs were registered and after investigation charge sheets also came to be filed. The first petitioner has also filed a suit against some of the 5 :: residents of the said apartment for permanent injunction and the said suit is still pending. If the entire facts and circumstances are analyzed it becomes clear that the dispute exists between the developer and the apartment owners in regard to some issues probably relating to of parking and payment maintenance charges. Given a plain reading to the FIR registered against the petitioners and the charge sheets filed thereon it can be very well said that the contents of the charge sheet do not constitute any offences punishable under Sections 341 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. What appears is just a common quarrel. If a case of this type is taken to trial it amounts to abuse of process of Court. Since no offence forthcoming against the petitioners I am of the 6 :: petitioners can be quashed and hence following: Petition is allowed. pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Sd JUDGE Kmv 