- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11399 CRL.A No. 469 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. BABU S/O LATE GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.74, MARY NIVAS, 5TH CROSS, V.S. LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.M. NARAYANA S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, NEW NO.1-1 TAYAPPA GARDEN, BILEKAHALLI BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 076. …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 341 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 380 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11399 CRL.A No. 469 of 2025 BENGALURU (SCCH-12) IN CRL.MISC.PETN.NO.39/2023 THEREBY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 340 R/W 195 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and counsel sought for an order to set-aside the order passed by the XI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bangalore (SCCH-12) in Crl.Misc.Petn.No.39/2023 rejecting the invoking of application filed under Section 340 r/w 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the respondent has claimed that he is a tenant of his brother for a period of 11 months and thereafter the same was renewed for 3 years and he paid the additional amount. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the brother of the appellant was examined before the Trial Court in O.S.No.6579/2018 and in the cross-examination he admits - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11399 CRL.A No. 469 of 2025 that his brother had taken the contention that shop in which he running the business belongs to ownership of him and also admits that he is not the owner of the property bearing No.116/1A and it is the property of Muniraju and also admits that he is not the owner of any portion of the property bearing No.116/1A and even the shop in which the possession of my brother is also belonging to said Muniraju alone and further admission that it may be true my brother might have produce the document to show he is the owner of the shop in possession and contend that a false claim was made before the Trial Court by the respondent claiming that his brother is the owner and he got the possession from his brother by entering into a lease agreement. When the brother of the appellant himself categorically admits that he is not the owner and hence, the respondent had indulged in making false claim. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application when the application was filed under Section 340 r/w 195 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it requires interference. The counsel also would - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11399 CRL.A No. 469 of 2025 vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application in coming to a conclusion that already revision petition is pending before the Court in CRP No.501/2022 and with regard to the finding is concerned, the same can be urged in Criminal Revision Petition. 3. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also on perusal of the document, particularly the claim made by the respondent before the Trial Court in the proceedings initiated against him as well as the deposition brought to the notice of this Court of PW1 in O.S.No.6579/2018 and when such admission is their and also he did not accept the case of the appellant and he also claims that the property belongs to one Muniraju. When such being the case, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that when the CRP is pending before the Court and unless the same is adjudicated, question of initiation of criminal prosecution against the respondent does not arise. When such finding is given, I do not find any error committed by the order of the Trial Court in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11399 CRL.A No. 469 of 2025 coming to such a conclusion and also the respondent can take number of defenses and also not indulged in creation of any document only took the contention that he was a tenant under the brother of the appellant. Hence, it is not a case for invoking Section 340 r/w Section 195 of Cr.P.C and no ground is made out to interfere with finding of the Trial Court. 4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39