- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9903 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MR R KRISHNAPPA @ KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE B RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.405, OPP MEEVA MASJID NAGAVARAPALYA, C V RAMAN NAGARA BANGALORE -560093 (SENIOR BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 2. MR PANCHAKSHARAIAH M. HIREMATH S/O MR MALLAYYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.189, 2ND MAIN ROAD ADJACENT TO KEB OFFICE, PAI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560016 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJIT P B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE -560093 REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 2. L MANIKUMAR S/O LATE LOGNATHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.333, DOUBLE ROAD INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.50304/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 447,427,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 (AS PER ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under the Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in CC.No.50304/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have contended that accused No.1 is the owner of property bearing Khatha No.99A, PID No.83-74-99A, situated at Nagavara Palya. Accused No.2 is the owner of Khatha No.101, PID No.82-325-101 of Nagavara Palya. They are adjacent properties. Therefore, they are amalgamated through registered Amalgamation Deed dated 15.11.2018. After the amalgamation, the composite property is allotted PID No.83-74-99A. After the amalgamation, accused Nos.1 and 2 have secured plan from the relevant authorities and constructed a residential building in 2019. They have put up construction within their property by abiding the terms of sanction plan. 3.1 The mother of respondent No.2/complainant claims to be the owner of property No.83-74-141/2 situated on the southern side of accused property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint dated 05.09.2020, alleging that his mother's property is adjoining composite property of accused Nos.1 and 2. Again at the end of the complaint he claim that his mother's property is not situated adjoining the property of accused Nos.1 and 2. He has alleged that accused have not left any set back in their property and are attempting to encroach upon his mother's property. He has also alleged that on 04.09.2020, accused have demolished the compound wall of property of respondent No.2 and caused loss of Rs.50,000/- and also abused him in filthy language. 3.2 Based on the said complaint, the concerned police have filed charge sheet in C.C.No.50304/2021. They came to know about it only they received the summons from the trial Court. The allegations made in the charge sheet are false. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature and respondent No.2 has tried to give it a colour of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 criminal case. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Paramjeet Batra)1. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 - State would submit that even though respondent No.2/complainant completed construction of his house and the compound wall, accused being the neighbour have demolished the compound situated in between both properties and caused loss of Rs.50,000/-. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. There is prima facie material to proceed against the accused and it required a full fledged trial and pray to dismiss the petition. 1 (2013) 11 SCC 673 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 6. Head arguments and perused the record. 7. Thus, it is the definite case of the prosecution that, though the accused persons have constructed house in their property, they have not left any set back within their property. On the other hand, when respondent No.2/ complainant constructed compound wall within the limits of his property, accused persons high-handed demolished the same and on the basis of the complaint filed against them, after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners and it is not a fit case to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. While complainant claim that the he constructed the compound wall within the limits of his property and it is the accused persons who have not left any set back. On the other hand, the accused also claim that the set back in between the properties of complainant and accused belong to them and the complainant was trying to encroach upon - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 the set back and put up compound wall. Thus, there are rival claims. The investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused alleging that they have illegally demolished the compound wall constructed by the complainant and when he questioned, gave threat, etc. 9. Thus, the disputed facts and the rival contentions of the parties cannot be decided in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused and of course it is for the accused to demonstrate that the set back is within their property, and it was complainant who attempted to encroach upon their property. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. The disputed facts cannot be decided in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22444 CRL.P No. 9903 of 2021 (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45