- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28083 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KAMALESH V SHAH S/O LATE VIMAL B SHAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.16, 3RD FLOOR, NARANG CHAMBERS, NEW RAJA BUILDING, N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560002. 2. SRI. MUKESH S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. SRI. SURESH S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/A KALENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560076. 4. SRI. M. SRIDHARA RAO S/O M. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.176, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, NRUPATHUNGA NAGARA. J.P.NAGARA. 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SOUTH EAST DIVISION AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560095. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP ALONG WITH SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE FOUR CAUSE NOTICES, BEARING NO. M G/CRM/460/DCP(A. VI)/2025, DATED 18.08.2025, ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE -A1 TO A4), BY ALLOWING THIS WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the show-cause notices dated 18.08.2025, produced at Annexures–A1 to A4, issued by respondent No.1 – the Special Executive Magistrate. The said notices have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 126 of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and are purportedly issued under Section 130 of the said Act. The legality and validity of these notices are under challenge in the present petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional SPP representing the State. I have also carefully perused the material placed on record. 3. The facts of the case present a very sorry state of affairs. Despite the pendency of a civil suit between the petitioners and the complainant , at whose instance proceedings under Section 127 of BNS 2023 have been initiated , the action of respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate in issuing the impugned notices was wholly unwarranted. At this stage, it becomes necessary to refer to the civil proceedings. It is seen that Sri. Venugopal A.M. and Sri. Shivashankar V. have instituted O.S.No.582/2025 seeking relief of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 perpetual injunction. The reliefs claimed in the said suit are extracted as under: "Wherefore, the plaintiffs humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass: i) Judgment and decree restraining the defendants from interfering or from causing interference with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either by defendants or their men, agents or any person/persons claiming through or under them by way of permanent injunction. ii) To pass judgment and decree restraining the defendants from damaging the fence constructed by the plaintiffs on the suit schedule property either by the defendants or their men, agents or any person/persons claiming through or under them by way of permanent injunction. iii) To pass such other orders or decree as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case." 4. The plaintiffs in the said suit had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction. The Trial Court, by its order, granted the relief of interim injunction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 09.07.2025, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC. The Appellate Court, in M.A. No.71/2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court granting injunction. This Court finds it appropriate to refer to the observations of the Appellate Court. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment in M.A. No.71/2025, being relevant for the present case, are extracted herein below: "25. Admittedly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs in the present case have filed suit seeking for permanent injunction against the appellants and others in respect of the suit schedule property. From the rival contention of the parties, it is quite clear that the appellants-defendants have disputed the title of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and they have setup their own separate title over the suit schedule property. Hence, it is clear that cloud is casted upon the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Moreover it appers are there are litigation pending before the Civil Court as well as Revenue Authority by and between the vendors of plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the suit schedule property which have not reached finality. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 26. Hence the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2 have to prove their possession based on the title over the suit schedule property as they are claiming in order to convince the Court with regard to interference by the defendants - appellants over the plaintiff's possession on the suit schedule property. The appellants - defendants have denied the flow the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and they have set up their own separate title over the suit schedule property. On considering the materials available before the Court, it is quite clear that cloud is casted on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property which they have to establish in a suit for declaration of title. For these reasons it is clear that there is no prima-facie case in favour of plaintiffs. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiffs. Further irreparable loss and injury would not cause to the plaintiffs if temporary injunction is not granted in their favour as prayed." Emphasis supplied by me 5. On a closer examination of the observations made by the competent Appellate Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal proceedings under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is evident that the title as well as the possession claimed by the plaintiffs/complainant was found to be doubtful. Consequently, the order of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 injunction granted by the Court of first instance was set aside. Once the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court has been reversed by the Appellate Court, it necessarily presupposes that the plaintiffs therein were held not to be in lawful possession of the suit property. 6. Prima-facie, it appears that having suffered an adverse order at the hands of the Appellate Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal, the plaintiffs sought to circumvent the judicial process by approaching respondent No.1 who also happens to be the Executive Magistrate – and lodged a complaint. Acting upon such complaint, respondent No.1 proceeded to issue show-cause notices under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 7. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that, time and again, it has been repeatedly emphasized in a catena of judgments that when a dispute is already seized before a competent Civil Court between two private individuals, the Executive Magistrate or any other - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 prescribed Police Officer ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Despite clear guidelines and judicial pronouncements, it is unfortunate that the prescribed authorities and Executive Magistrates are often swayed by private complaints, thereby initiating parallel proceedings, which are wholly unwarranted. 8. In fairness, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has submitted that although respondent No.1 did issue show-cause notices in the present case, no further action was contemplated, as it was later noticed that the matter was already pending adjudication before the Civil Court. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.1, henceforth, must exercise caution and circumspection whenever complaints are lodged by private parties. It is incumbent upon the Executive Magistrate to ascertain, at the very threshold, whether the grievance is of a purely civil nature. Unless - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 there is a clear report disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and a prima facie case is made out, the Executive Magistrate ought to refrain from exercising powers under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. In fact, before embarking upon any proceedings under Section 126, it would be prudent for the authority concerned to conduct a preliminary enquiry so as to rule out the possibility of the dispute being purely civil in character. 9. In the present case, it appears that respondent No.1, acting solely on the complaint lodged by the plaintiffs, hastily initiated proceedings by issuing show- cause notices under Section 127. Now that the Appellate Court has vacated the interim injunction and has categorically held that the plaintiffs’ claim of possession is doubtful, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 are wholly unsustainable in law and are therefore liable to be quashed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38983 WP No. 28083 of 2025 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The show-cause notices dated 18.08.2025, issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioners and produced at Annexures–A1 to A4, are quashed and set aside. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6