- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1984 CRL.P No. 100329 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100329 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKKAVVA BANGENNAVAR AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 2. SHRI. MARUTI BANGENNAVAR AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 3. SHRI. GANAPATI PANDURANG BANGENNAVAR AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 4. SMT. LAXMIBAI GANAPATI BANGENNAVAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. GRAM SAHAYAK, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 5. SMT. LAKKAWWA MARUTI BANGENNAVVAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 6. SMT. RENUKA/CHANNAVVA SANJU ARABHAVI AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TUKKANATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218. 7. SMT. LAKKAVVA DUNDAPPA KARAGAOVI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:20:54 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1984 CRL.P No. 100329 of 2022 8. SRI. DUNDAPPA PARASAPPA KARAGAOVI AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 9. PARASAPPA DUNDAPPA KARAGAOVI AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 10. DODDAPPA DUNDAPPA KARAGAOVI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 11. SMT. SHOBHA PARASAPPA BANGENNAVVAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KINALKODI TOTH JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKODI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. LAKKAVVA PHAKIRAPPA GANACHARI AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAGANUR, TQ. CHIKODI-591201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2021 PASSED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI IN CC NO.510/2021 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 341, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC REGISTERED WITH CHIKODI POLICE IN CRIME NO.150/2020, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1984 CRL.P No. 100329 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 427, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners criminally trespassed into the subject land, assaulted, wrongfully restrained, and threatened the de facto complainant and her family members with dire consequences. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) vehemently contended that the allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet materials disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. He argued that the veracity of these allegations should be examined during the trial and cannot be adjudicated in this petition. He further submitted that the alleged incident took place during the subsistence of an order of status quo operating against the petitioners. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, the following observations are made: • Respondent No.2 and others have filed a civil suit in O.S. No.206/2014. In the said suit, the Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo on 09.10.2014. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1984 CRL.P No. 100329 of 2022 • The alleged incident took place on 07.10.2020, but the FIR was lodged only on 13.10.2020, after the Trial Court had already directed the parties to maintain status quo. • Given that the issue of possession of the subject land is pending before the jurisdictional Civil Court, the question of whether the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land cannot be determined in a criminal case. 5. The allegations in the FIR stem from a civil dispute between the parties, as evidenced by the pending suit filed by respondent No.2. Moreover, the order directing the parties to maintain the status quo was vacated on 27.01.2021. Even otherwise, the allegations in the FIR are omnibus and general in nature, without specifying any overt act detailing how and in what manner each of the petitioners assaulted or abused the de facto complainant in filthy language. The trial court cannot frame a charge against the Petitioners only on general and omnibus allegations. 6. In the absence of specific allegations against each petitioner, prosecuting them for the aforesaid offences would be unjustified. The continuation of criminal proceedings in this case would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law.Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1984 CRL.P No. 100329 of 2022 ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.510/2021 pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. iii) All the contentions of the parties before the Trial Court in the pending suit are kept open. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24