- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5398 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: K R BASAVARAJAPPA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KABBINAKERE VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSADURGA POLICE, HOSADURGA-577527. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 2. NIRANJANAMURTHY S/O MARULASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA IN CR.NO.384/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 209,423,420,199,418 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSADURGA P.S., HOSADURGA IN ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P. 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 Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.384/2018 of Hosadurga PS, for the offence punishable under Sections 209, 423, 420, 199, 418 of IPC. 2. In support of the petition, accused has contended that respondent No.2 filed PCR.No.117/2018 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga. On reference it was registered in Cr.No.384/2018. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 contents of the complaint does not disclose any offence and as such the complaint, FIR and the consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. Petitioner has not committed any offence much less those alleged in the complaint. In fact already Lokayukta has closed similar complaint on 05.12.2017. Only to harass the petitioner, respondent No.2 has filed the complaint. The brother of petitioner has purchased the property in question from Talawar Rajanna on 30.09.1974. In the partition between petitioners and his brothers, this property was allotted to the share of petitioner. The dispute is purely civil in nature which is being tried to be given a criminal cloak. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that land in Sy.No.71(old Sy.No.25/10) of Kabbinakere Village, Hosadurga Taluk, measuring 4 acres was a land under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 cultivation of Veerappa Shetty, the grand father of respondent No.2 under Bagar Hukum. It was a joint family property. After the death of grand father of respondent No.2, it was granted in name of Talavar Rajanna, paternal uncle of respondent No.2 in the year 1957-58 as per Bagar Hukum. It was a joint family property. Talavar Rajanna died unmarried and in the family partition, the said property was allotted to the share of Marulasiddappa, the father of respondent No.2. Marulasiddappa died in 1992. After his death, respondent No.2 is in possession and cultivation of it. The said property was acquired for upper Bhadra project during 2016. By the time, respondent No.2 was trying to get the revenue records transferred in his name, petitioner managed to get the record transferred in his name and drawn compensation of Rs.55,74,987/-. For this purpose he has concocted sale deeds in respect of Sy.No.71(old Sy.No.25/10) and Sy.No.72(old Sy.No.25/11) of Kabbinakere Village, Hosadurga Taluk. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 This fact came to the notice of respondent No.2 only after petitioner withdrew the compensation. 3.1 In addition petitioner has also filed suit in O.S.No.383/2017 against one Mahadevappa, S/o Basappa of Kabbinakere, in respect of Sy.No.71(old Sy.No.25/10) of Kabbinakere Village, Hosadurga Taluk, measuring 4 acres. 3.2 Even though respondent No.2 gave complaint to the revenue officers, land acquisition officer and also before the Lokayukta, he could not get any relief and hence the complaint. 3.3. The private complaint was referred to investigation and registered in Cr.No.384/2018 and investigation is taken up. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. It requires a detailed investigation and pray to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard arguments and perused the record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 5. Thus, from the petition averments as well as the complaint averments it is evident that the dispute between the parties i.e, between the complainant and accused is with regard to land and Sy.No.71 (old No 25/10) of Kabbinakere Village. It is not in dispute that the said land was granted to one Talawar Rajanna and he was unmarried. While accused claim that the said Talwar Rajanna during his lifetime sold the said property in favour of brother of accused vide Sale deed dated 30.09.1974 and later in the partition with his family members, petitioner got the said land allotted to his share, complainant claimed that Talawar Rajanna was his senior paternal uncle and since he was unmarried and died without any issues, the father of complainant succeeded to the same and later his legal representatives including the complainant are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. When the said land was acquired for Bhadra Upper Project, before he could collect revenue records and make a claim for compensation, accused has got - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 transferred the revenue records and drawn the compensation of ₹55,74,987/-. 6. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta against the Tahsildar, Village Accountant, Revenue inspector of Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District and also the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhadra Upper River Project, Chitradurga Taluk. After making enquiry, the Lokayukta has closed the said complaint. During the course of the proceedings, it was observed that Talawar Rajanna belong to Tamil Reddy caste and during 1974 itself, he sold the said land to Erappa, the brother of accused. Talawar Rajanna died without issues. It is also observed that complainant is not related to the said Talawar Rajanna. After the sale in favour of Erappa, mutation was effected in his name in MR No.5/1974–75. Accused claim that in the partition, the said land was allotted to his share and he got it transferred to his name through MR No.1/1991–92 . Despite the same, the complainant as well as his family - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 members have not challenged the said revenue entries. No parallel entries are made in the name of Veerappa Shetty, who claims to be the son of Talawar Rajanna and his LRs, including the complainant. 7. It appears the investigating officer has sought information regarding the legal heirs of Talwar Rajanna and as per annexure-F, the revenue inspector has given report dated 30.01.2020 stating that complainant Niranjanamurthy is not related to Talawar Rajanna. On the other hand, complainant Niranjanamurthy is coming from the family of Veerappa Shetty-Great grandfather of complainant. Despite there, being a registered sale deed in respect of the property in question executed by Talwar Rajanna in favour of Erappa as long back as in 1974, the complainant and his family members have not taken any action to set aside by filing necessary suit. In fact, while closing the complaint, the Upalokayuta has observed that if the complainant is having any right over the property in question, he is at liberty to get his title declared by civil - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38991 CRL.P No. 5398 of 2020 Court. In the event of getting an order from the Civil Court, the complainant can recover the compensation received by the petitioner. 8. Thus, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, and as such continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed. (ii) The Criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in Cr.No.384/2018 of Hosadurga PS, for the offence punishable under Sections 209, 423, 420, 199, 418 of IPC is hereby quashed. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27