- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9128 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9146 OF 2021 IN CRL.P NO. 9128/2021 BETWEEN: SHRI N.M. MAHADEVA S/O. LATE MARIMADHU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NO.419, GIRIDARSHINI LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION, MYSURU CITY - 570 026 BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SHRI CHANDRAIAH M.G., S/O LATE GUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.177, 2ND STAGE, 6TH A MAIN ROAD, KAMAKSHI PLAYA, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD - U/R) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.66/2020 DATED 04.08.2020 ON THE FILE OF III J.M.F.C COURT MYSURU CITY MYSURU ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 447 AND 504 OF IPC. IN CRL.P NO. 9146/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI N.M. MAHADEVA S/O. LATE MARIMADHU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NO.419, GIRIDARSHINI LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 026 2. SHRI ANANDAKUMAR N.N. S/O SHRI S. NAJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/6, HEMADRIPRIYA NILAYA, PAPANNA LAYOUT, YARAGANAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 028. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION, MYSURU CITY - 570 026 BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SHRI CHANDRAIAH M.G., S/O LATE GUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.177, 2ND STAGE, 6TH A MAIN ROAD, KAMAKSHI PLAYA, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SACHIN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.69/2020 DATED 08.08.2020 ON THE FILE OF III J.M.F.C COURT, MYSURU ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 447, 427, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA COMMON ORAL ORDER Even though the criminal petitions pertain to two different criminal cases, the parties, subject matter of the dispute and the allegations are similar and common, I propose to take up both the petitions for disposal under the common order. 2. The petitioner being the sole accused in Cr.No.66/2020 of Alanahalli police station, on the file of the learned III J.M.F.C.Court Mysuru City, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') has filed Crl.P.No.9128/2021, petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.69/2020 of Alanahally Police Station, on the file of the III J.M.F.C. Court Mysuru City, Mysuru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 IPC have filed Crl.P.No.9146/2021 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 being the complainant in Cr.Nos.66/2020 has lodged the first information with Alanahally police station against the petitioners, alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the contention of the complainant that on 04.08.2020 at about 4.00 pm, when he gone near his site, he found that a car and two wheelers were parked there without his permission. On enquiry, he came to know that the vehicles belong to the accused. When the complainant questioned the accused as to why he had parked the vehicles in his land, accused abused him in filthy language. The complainant filed the suit O.S.No.1473/2012 seeking permanent injunction and got the interim order of temporary injunction. Therefore, the complainant contended that the accused has illegally and criminally trespassed over his property, abused him in filthy language, and also criminally intimidated. Therefore, he is liable for prosecution. Accordingly, prayed for initiation of criminal proceedings. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 4. The very same complainant has filed the first information on 08.08.2020 in Cr.No.69/2020 against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that on 06.08.2020 when he was digging foundation in the site in question for the purpose of putting compound wall, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the spot, picked up quarrel with the informant, demolished the half built compound wall and abused the informant in filthy language. They criminally intimidated the complainant to cause his death and caused damages. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Two FIRs came to be registered and the investigations were undertaken. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Since interim order of stay was granted, further investigation was not undertaken. 5. Heard Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 in Crl.P.No.9128/2021 and Crl.P.No.9146/2021 respectively. Sri. Sachin Kumar B.M., learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.9146/2021. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the disputed site is bearing No.479/419/7 of Giridarshini layout of Alanahalli. Respondent No.2 is claiming site No.475/7. But asserting right over the site No.479/419/7. The petitioners have taken the said site on lease for the purpose of parking the vehicle. Respondent No.2 without having any right has raised the dispute. 7. Learned counsel submitted that even though the complainant-respondent No.2 is claiming right over the property on the basis of the decree passed in his favour in OS.No.1473/2012, the said suit is only for permanent injunction. The petitioners are not parties to the said suit. Even though the said suit came to be decreed, initially, one of the defendant filed Misc.No.43/2014 and as per order dated 14.11.2017, the said case was allowed and the decree dated 07.11.2013 passed in OS.No.1473/2012 was set aside. Later, the suit was restored on file and since steps were not taken against defendant Nos.1 to 3, the suit against them was dismissed. Now the suit OS.No.1473/2012 is pending only against defendant No.4, for which the petitioners are not the parties. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 8. Learned counsel also contended that the owner of the site by name S.Venkatesh from whom the petitioner had taken the site on lease had filed the suit OS.No.1665/2020 (Old OS.No.224/2020) against respondent No.2 seeking permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 09.02.2024. Thus, it is clear that the disputed site belongs to S.Venkatesh-plaintiff in OS.No.1665/2020 and not respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 is not the owner of the site, he cannot allege any of the offences including trespass by the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel submitted that accused No.1 has filed the complaint against respondent No.2 and others and it is registered in Cr.No.67/2020 of Alanahalli police station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504, 149 of IPC and the same is pending for investigation. Respondent No.2 has never challenged the registration of criminal case against him. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the criminal proceedings in both the cases, in the interest of justice. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the FIR was registered on the basis of the first information. Investigation is not yet undertaken. Unless the investigation is undertaken, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Hence, they pray for passing appropriate order. 11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the decree dated 07.11.2013 passed in OS.1473/2012, wherein respondent No.2 as plaintiff filed the suit for permanent - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 injunction against one Krishnamurty and three others. Petitioners are not the defendants in the said suit. It is the specific contention of the complainant that in view of the decree passed in OS.1473/2012, he asserts his rights. However, learned counsel for the petitioners produced the order dated 14.11.2017 passed in Mis.Case No.43/2014 on the file of the learned II Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, whereunder Misc case filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was allowed, as a result, judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013 passed in OS.No.1473/2012 was set-aside. It is stated that the suit is still pending against defendant No.4 alone as steps were not taken against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the suit was dismissed against them. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced the copy of the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2024 passed in OS.No.1665/2020 on the file of the learned 11th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore filed by one S.Venkatesh represented by the GPA holder against respondent No.2 herein. The suit was decreed exparte, granting permanent injunction in favour of S.Venkatesh, who is said to be the owner of the disputed site. Even though the complainant - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 is claiming site No.475/2007 of Alanahalli village, according to the petitioners, it bears site No.479/419/07. When there is serious dispute regarding the identity of the site, the dispute will be of civil nature, the parties have to identify their respective sites by proving their title and possession over the same before the Civil Court. Instead, respondent No.2 filed two separate complaints registered in Cr.No.66/2020 and 69/2020 of Alanahalli police station, which is in clear abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed. (ii) The FIR registered against accused No.1 in Crime No. 66/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504 of IPC and the FIR registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.69/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC of Alanahally Police Station, on the file of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8275 CRL.P No. 9128 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 9146 of 2021 the III JMFC Court, Mysuru City, Mysuru, are hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of the main petition pending IAs stand disposed of. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13