- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:71 CRL.P No. 101012 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101012 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDAPPA S/O DEVAPPA GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHEMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. LAKKAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHEMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. KUMAR S/O SIDDAPPA GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHEMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. NAGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHEMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. KASTURI S/O SIDDAPPA GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O: KHEMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.10 10:12:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:71 CRL.P No. 101012 of 2020 6. HANUMANTH S/O APPANNA GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHEMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUDACHI POLICE STATION, REPT. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. 2. ISHWARAYYA S/O KADAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DEPUTY TASHILDAR, R/O: KUDACHI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SMT. NAYANA RASHINKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.91/2020 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KUDACHI POLICE STATION UNUSABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 323, 431, 447, 353, 504, 506, 109 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND 3 & 4 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT 1984 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES THE PETITIONERS ONLY AS AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:71 CRL.P No. 101012 of 2020 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 431, 447, 353, 504, 506, and 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Act of 1984). The second respondent filed a complaint with the jurisdictional Police alleging that the petitioners trespassed onto a public road, unlawfully cultivated crops, and, on the date of the incident, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him when he attempted to form a road on the disputed property. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State, and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners had instituted a suit, O.S.No.64/1999, before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Raibag, seeking a permanent injunction against respondent No.2 and others. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 19.02.2001, decreed the suit, restraining respondent No.2 and other defendants from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession of the suit property. The Court further directed that respondent No.2 and other defendants shall not take more than 8 feet of land from the petitioners’ property for the purpose of forming the road. The Court held that if respondent No.2 intended to widen the road, it could only be done through proper acquisition proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:71 CRL.P No. 101012 of 2020 4. The decree in O.S.No.64/1999 has attained finality and is binding on respondent No.2. The dispute between the parties centers on the formation of the road. In light of the decree restraining respondent No.2 and others, the question of whether the petitioners unlawfully cultivated crops on the alleged public road requires adjudication by the jurisdictional Civil Court. 5. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners in the present circumstances would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned first information report in Crime No.91/2020 registered by 1st respondent, kudachi Police Station, stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 67