- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9832 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LAKKAIAH 2. SRI SHIVAKUMARA H S AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SRI HONNAIAH 3. SRI PRAKASH.S.H AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SRI HONNAIAH 4. SRI JAGADEESHA S H AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SRI HONNAIAH ALL ARE R/O SOMPURA VILLAGE RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI ARKALAGUDU TALUK HASSAN DIST-573130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O OF KONANURU POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI LAKKAIAH R/O SOMPURA VILLAGE RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI ARKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DIST-573130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.VIJAY KUMAR.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2022 TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 295,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.403/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUD. 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 to 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, with a prayer to quash order dated 19.03.2022 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 the offence punishable under Sections 295, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC in C.C.No.403/2020 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgudu. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, the accused persons have contended that the order impugned is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. There is no application of mind. The claim of complainant that petitioners have removed the signboard from the land claimed to be owned by alleged Dr B.R Ambedkar Youth Association is false. Already the Civil Court has held that there is no prima facie case made out by the Association. Petitioner No.3 is the lawful owner of the land in question having purchased through registered sale deed. The revenue entries are mutated in the name of petitioner No.2. The Gram Panchayat has issued Form No.9 and 11 A - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 in favour of the petitioner and permission is also granted to put up construction of the house. In the above circumstances, the Magistrate without appreciating any of these documents has erred in holding that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. The dispute is purely civil in nature. Complainant has failed to prove that the land in dispute belongs either to the Association or to the Government. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Continuation of the proceedings amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition. 4. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent No.2 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1/State would submit that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 disclose that in Sompura Village, since 25 years, the portrait of Dr B.R Ambedkar is displayed. Petitioners have removed the same on 10.05.2020 at 5.15 p.m and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 destroyed it. When respondent No.2 and other villagers questioned petitioners, they abused in filthy language and gave threat to their life. Therefore, action is to be taken against them. 4.1 They would further submit that based on the said complaint, the concerned police registered the case in Cr.No.112/2020 and after conducting detailed investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. Earlier, the trial Court took cognizance and it was challenged by the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5375/2020. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition, remanded the case for the trial Court to take cognizance in accordance with law by applying its mind. Accordingly, after going through the charge sheet material, the trial Court has taken cognizance, after proper application of mind. It requires a detailed trial to prove the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 allegations against the petitioners and pray to reject the petition. 5. Heard arguments and produced the record. 6. Thus, the allegations made against the petitioners are that in Sompura village, Ramanathpura Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk of Hassan District, since 25 years the portrait of Dr.B.R Ambedkar is displayed. On 10.05.2020, at 5.15 p.m, petitioners removed the same and destroyed it and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 295, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. 7. On the other hand, it is contented by the petitioners that site measuring 39 x 27 ft bearing Khata No.188 of Gram Panchayat situated at Sompura village, Ramanathapura Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District is purchased by accused No.1 through registered sale deed dated 28.12.2017 from one S.K Krishna Shetty. Since the date of purchase, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 of the same. The property in question does not belong to either to the Government or to the complainant. After the complaint is filed, the complainant and others have got registered an Association in the name and style of Dr. B.R Ambedkar Youth Association on 29.05.2020 and based on Resolution dated 06.06.2020 and 12.06.2020 filed suit in O.S.No.134/2020 for permanent injunction against the petitioners and Panchayat Development Officer of the Panchayat. After considering the documents produced by the petitioners, the trial Court refused to grant temporary injunction. 8. Against the said order, the Association filed MA.No.4/2020 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgud. It came to be dismissed and thereby confirmed the order of the trial Court. The said order attained finality. Against the order taking cognizance, petitioners filed Crl.P.No.5375/2020. It came to be allowed and case was remanded, for fresh consideration. Despite the same, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 trial Court, vide the impugned order, once again took cognizance without appreciation of facts. 9. At the out set, it is relevant to note that in the complaint, the complainant has not stated the details of the property where the portrait of Dr.B.R Ambedkar was displayed. It is also not disclosed to whom the said property belong. The complaint is filed on 11.05.2020, whereas the complainant and others have got registered an Association on 29.05.2020. Based on Resolution dated 06.06.2020 and 12.06.2020, they have filed suit. In other words, the Association was not in existence when the complaint was filed. Moreover, the property where the portrait of Dr. B.R Ambedkar was allegedly displayed does not belong to the complainant or the Association or to the Government. Even if it belongs to the Government, then also, the complainant cannot claim a right to display the portrait of Dr. B.R Ambedkar. On the other hand, the documents produced by the petitioners clearly establish the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 fact that petition No.1 has purchased the site through a registered document. 10. In fact, during the course of order on I.A.No.II interim Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.134/2020 as well as in M.A.No.4/2020, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have clearly held that the complainant as well as the Association are not having any right, title, interest or possession over the property in question and they cannot restrain the petitioners from exercising right over their property. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the complainant has tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of property held by the petitioners and has chosen to file a false complaint. While taking cognizance, the trial Court has not taken into consideration these aspects. Only on the basis of charge sheet filed against the petitioners, it has taken cognizance. Therefore, there is no application of mind. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. (ii) The order dated 19.03.2022 passed by the trial Court, taking cognizance against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 295, 504, 506, r/w Section 34 IPC in C.C.No.403/2020 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgudu is hereby quashed. (iii) Consequently, the criminal proceedings are quashed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37287 CRL.P No. 9832 of 2022 (iv) The Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the trial Court through e- mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30