- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2323 OF 2025 BETWEEN: K. N. BHADRAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT DEVANAHALLI TALLUKU, KEMPATHIMMANA HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KANNAMANGALA, KARNATAKA -562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA SHO VISHVANATHAPURA P.S REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560001. 2. C N MURULIDARAN S/O LATE C K NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A NO 23, CAD AND MET LAYOUT RMV, 2ND BLOCK, AND STAGE, SANJAYNAGARA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SACHIN V R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.4316/2024 DATED 04.11.2024, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 329(3), 324(4), 324(5) OF BNS, REGISTERED IN VISHWANATHAPURA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.4316/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 324(5) of BNS registered by the Vishwanathapura Police Station on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner– accused, claiming ownership of the property pursuant to a Government grant, allegedly engaged two JCB machines - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 and attempted to alter the developed layout. The complainant, asserting ownership over Site No.14, lodged a complaint on 23.07.2024. It is alleged therein that on 22.07.2024 at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioner trespassed into the property with two JCBs and demolished the drainage constructed by the developer during formation of the layout. The complainant claims that this fact was brought to his notice on 23.07.2024 at about 8.30 a.m. by one Praneeth. Based on this complaint, Crime No.152/2024 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4) and 324(5) of the BNS, 2023. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is now facing trial. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings, seriously disputing the allegations in the charge sheet. It is contended that the entire case of the prosecution is false, frivolous, and a product of malicious prosecution at the instance of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 complainant. The petitioner asserts that he has not committed any act of criminal trespass and that, being the lawful owner of the land by virtue of a Government grant, no offence of trespass can be made out against him. It is therefore urged that continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.4316/2024 amounts to abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. 4. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant has filed a detailed statement of objections, along with which documents of title and the sanctioned layout plan issued by the Planning Authority have been produced. Reliance is also placed on the charge sheet materials, including the spot inspection conducted by the Investigating Officer and the photographs depicting the demolition of the drainage. It is contended that the investigation has clearly established the petitioner’s act of destruction and, therefore, there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial. Hence, no indulgence is warranted by this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 5. Learned HCGP, drawing attention to the charge sheet, submits that the disputed property is a developed layout with sanctioned plots. It is argued that the petitioner had no right to trespass and alter the character of the property by damaging the drainage system. He further relies on the statements of the JCB owners, who have categorically deposed that it was at the instance of the petitioner–accused that the land was levelled and the drainages were demolished. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant, and the learned HCGP. 7. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the charge sheet materials placed on record. The de facto complainant asserts that Site No.14 purchased by him forms an integral part of the developed layout duly sanctioned by the competent Planning Authority. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that he is the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 lawful owner of agricultural land measuring 3 acres, which was granted to him by the Government, and that the disputed plots are not part of the sanctioned layout but are abutting his land. 8. On a careful perusal of the materials on record, particularly the photographs produced by the Investigating Officer after conducting a spot inspection, as well as the layout plan approved by the Planning Authority, it is evident that the disputed land has been developed into a residential layout. The photographs prima facie disclose the existence of tar roads and drainages constructed by the developer while forming the layout. Interestingly, the photographs relied upon by the petitioner himself also depict the same development, including the drainage system and tarred roads, thereby indicating that there is prima facie material supporting the prosecution’s version that the land in dispute is not in the nature of agricultural land but is part of an approved layout. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 9. In view of these, prima-facie, materials and the fact that the Investigating Officer, upon due spot inspection and examination of witnesses, has filed a detailed charge sheet attributing specific acts to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be adjudicated upon in the course of trial. At this stage, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution, particularly when the allegations are supported by documentary evidence, spot inspection reports, and statements of independent witnesses. 10. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision in Sri.Shivaswamy and others v. State of Karnataka and another (Crl.P.No.2776/2022) is misplaced and does not advance the petitioner’s case. The said judgment was rendered in an entirely different factual background and cannot be applied to the present case, where there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34860 CRL.P No. 2323 of 2025 Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8