SRINATH H.K. Vs. MAHESH V. SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this Criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC., calling in question the order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Udupi in C.C.No.3802/2016 in PCR No.48/2016 registering criminal case against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent claims to be a tenant under the petitioners, who are owners of a commercial complex known as 'Sree Dugra Prasad Complex' situated at S.No.8/26 of Moodanidambur village, Udupi Taluk. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was a tenant in a shop bearing premises No.3-1-15D, measuring approximately 250 square feet, in the said commercial complex. The petitioners have filed a suit for eviction, mesne profits and damages against the respondent in O.S.No.404/2013. It is alleged in the suit that the respondent has not being paying rents as agreed, therefore, the suit for eviction, mesne profits and damages. On the other hand, the respondent made a complaint to the local police on 09.07.2016, alleging that the petitioners have broke open the lock of the shops and have taken away a computer, an investor, battery, bill books and cash of Rs.5,000/- and other valuable furniture, the value of which is approximately of Rs.50,000/-, they have ransacked the shop and therefore action was sought against the petitioners. It is specifically alleged that the incident has occurred on 08.07.2016, that is the day before the complaint was made. It is the contention of the respondent that though the Circle Inspector of Police took a statement of petitioner No.1, but no further action was taken by the Circle Inspector of Police. On the other hand, an endorsement was issued on the very same day i.e., on 09.07.2016, that since the matter pertains to an immovable property, the respondent was directed to approach a competent Court. It is in this background that the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC was filed by the respondent before the competent Magistrate.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a plain reading of the complaint filed by the respondent, it is clear that there is no cognizable offence made out against any particular petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent knowingly fully well that he had indeed sub-let the premises to the neighboring liquor shop owner who was utilizing the shop that was let out to the respondent, has made this false complaint against the petitioners. Moreover, it is submitted that petitioner No.4 is residing abroad and there is no specific allegation made against any of the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners No.2 and 3 are housewives and their names have been included in the complaint only to harass them. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Section 204 of Cr.PC would provide that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be a summons case or a warrant case then accordingly, summons or warrants shall be issued against the accused. It is submitted that on going through the impugned order, it is clear that the Magistrate has not applied his mind before directing registration of a criminal case and issuance of summons.