- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200665 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJASHEKHAR M. S/O ESHWARAPPA M., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O EWS-1, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584102. 2. SRI VISHWANATH M. S/O RAJASHEKHAR M., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PVT. WORK, R/O EWS-1, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SHO, RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION, RAICHUR, REPT. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585102. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 2. SRI M. NAGAPPA S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALMALA VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR, NOW AT NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.162/2024 (ARISING OUT OF P.C.NO.08/2023) CONSEQUENTLY ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED 04-01-2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The brief facts of the case are as under: A private complaint was filed against the petitioners stating that the lands bearing Sy.No.171/3 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas and Sy.No.171/4 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Kalmala village are the ancestral properties of the complainant. When respondent No.2 was doing agricultural activities, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the family members who claimed to be the owners of the said lands, abused the respondent No.2 and also assaulted him. Consequently, respondent No.2 fell on the ground. At that time, accused No.1 stated to have kicked the respondent No.2 and caused injuries. The said quarrel was pacified by the intervention of the neighbors. Therefore, he approached the jurisdictional police to lodge a complaint. However, they did not take the complaint. Therefore, he filed a private complaint. The learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint, referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation. The Investigating Officer - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 after conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet against these petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the averments made in the complaint are baseless and false. Filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners is sheer abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed. In fact, a civil suit had been filed by one of the petitioners against respondent No.2 and an order of restraining the respondent No.2 was obtained. When the injunction was in operation, respondent No.2 deliberately entered the lands in order to trouble them. 4. It is further submitted that if a matter which is of the civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence in order to settle the civil dispute. Such criminal dispute has to be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. Moreover, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances certainly would be considered as an abuse of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 process of law. Hence, the petition has to be allowed and the charge sheet needs to be quashed. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified in filing the charge sheet and he submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the incident, who had pacified the quarrel that had taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 6. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 being the owner of the properties was cultivating the lands. However, the petitioners intervened into the process of cultivation and restrained him from proceeding further and also assaulted him. Consequently, the complainant sustained injuries. 7. It is further submitted that since the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed, there are other avenues available for the petitioners. Therefore, allowing the petition is not necessary and he may be directed to approach the Trial Court for necessary action. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments made in the complaint, it is apparent that the dispute has arisen in respect of the immovable properties bearing Sy.Nos.171/3 and 171/4. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are stated to be the co- sharers of the properties. However, the matter went to the Civil Court by one of the co-sharers. The averments of the petition would indicate that there was a restraint order against respondent No.2 in respect of the disputed lands. However, on the date of the alleged incident, the respondent No.2 stated to have trespassed into the properties and started cultivating it. 9. As per the averments of the complaint, the incident had occurred on 22.09.2022 around 12-00 noon. However, the FIR came to be registered on 12.04.2023 i.e., after lapse of seven months. Having considered the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and also the delay in lodging the complaint, it is appropriate to allow the petition. 10. Now it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636. Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 read as under: “7. It was submitted by Mr Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, High Court Cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, [1998] 5 SCC 749 and Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani, [1998] 7 SCC 698, wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 11. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, makes it clear that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction, the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Under these circumstances, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1485 CRL.P No. 200665 of 2024 inherent jurisdiction of the Court has to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law. 12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The further proceedings in C.C.No.162/2024 (arising out of P.C.No.8/2023) consequently order of taking cognizance and issuance of process dated 04.01.2024, pending on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur registered by respondent No.1/Raichur Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:PK