KALLAAPPA Vs. MARIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven petitioners in this criminal petition were the accused in C. C. No. 312 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Yelburga. They have filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the above criminal case and to discharge them.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent Mariappa, a resident of Yelburga in Raichur District, has filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that all of them conjointly trespassed into the land bearing S. No. 433/A situate at Yelburga which was in his possession at about 11 a.m. on 11-2-1976 and forcibly cut the standing wheat crop raised by him and took it away with dishonest intention. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. After the petitioners entered appearance, the respondent examined two witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned Magistrate, on assessing the material produced before him, framed a charge for an offence punishable Under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners as per his order dated 26-4-1977. The petitioners have filed the present petition to quash the proceedings and to discharge them of the offence alleged.

(3.) Shri B. S. Raikote, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, contended that the petitioners have pleaded that they are the tenants in possession of S. No, 433/A of which the respondent claims to be the owner and in possession thereof. Besides, the petitioners have also filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Yelburga Under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (shortly called the 'Act') for registration of occupancy right in respect of the said survey number in their names. Therefore, he has contended that the learned Magistrate should not have framed charge against the petitioners and proceeded with the case as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in the face of the plea raised by the petitioners. He submitted that the only course left to the Magistrate in such a situation was to discharge the petitioners directing the parties to seek their redress before the Land Tribunal. The argument of Sri Raikote has two phases. The first phase of his argument is that since the petitioners have contended that they have been in possession of S. No. 433/A as tenants, the Magistrate should have stayed the criminal proceedings and refer the question of tenancy to the land tribunal for its decision and report as required Under Section 133 of the Act. To better appreciate this argument, it, will be useful to refer to Section 133 of the Act, It reads thus :