- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10874 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GONIGATTAPURRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125, BENGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO, SARJAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. M. GOVINDAREDDY, S/O. LATE. MUNIKRISHNAREDDY, AGED 68 YEARS, NO.39, DOMMALURU VILLAGE, SHRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 563 130, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET (ANNEXURE A) AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED IN CC NO.591/2023 OF THE RESPONDENT 1 SARJAPURA P.S FOR THE O/P/US/ 341, 504, 427, 506 OF IPC CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.591/2023 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 504, 427 and 506 of IPC on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records. 3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.92/2, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 having acquired title pursuant to a decree passed in O.S.No.361/2007 and the consequential execution proceedings in Ex.No.10/2015, culminating in the registered sale deed dated 12.01.2022. It is alleged by respondent No.2 that on 25.01.2023 at around 9:30 a.m., the petitioner-accused, along with his supporters, unlawfully entered the suit schedule property and demolished the compound wall that had been constructed by respondent No.2 after acquiring the property. It is further alleged that the accused questioned respondent No.2’s title and issued threats to his life if he visited the property again. Based on these allegations, a case came to be registered in Crime No.17/2023, and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has vehemently contended that the essential ingredients of Section 341 of the IPC are not made out and therefore no offence under the said provision is attracted. In support, reliance is placed on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Keki Hormusji Gharda and others vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 475, as well as the decision of this Court in Pushpavati Medar vs. The State of Karnataka and another, in Crl.P.No.103871/2022. It is argued that the materials on record do not establish the offence of wrongful restraint, and in light of the absence of prima facie ingredients, the proceedings deserve to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in S. Shanmuga Pandian vs. State by Inspector of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1610, to contend that even if the entire charge-sheet is accepted as true, the allegations do not attract Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, subjecting the petitioner to unwarranted hardship. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, placing reliance on the charge-sheet materials, submits that there is prima facie material against the petitioner to proceed with the trial and that this is not a fit case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Referring to the RTC and mutation entries produced by the petitioner himself, it is pointed out that respondent No.2 has lawfully acquired title to the property through judicial proceedings, and the allegations in the complaint, supported by the charge-sheet, must be adjudicated during trial. 6. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.92/2, having acquired title pursuant to a decree passed in O.S.No.361/2007 and the consequential execution proceedings in Ex.No.10/2015, culminating in the registered sale deed dated 12.01.2022. It is alleged by respondent No.2 that on 25.01.2023 at around 9:30 a.m., the petitioner-accused, along with his supporters, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 unlawfully entered the suit schedule property and demolished the compound wall that had been constructed by respondent No.2 after acquiring the property. It is further alleged that the accused questioned respondent No.2’s title and issued threats to his life if he visited the property again. Based on these allegations, a case came to be registered in Crime No.17/2023, and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the charge-sheet materials, this Court finds that the gravamen of the complaint is that the petitioner, along with others, trespassed upon the property, demolished the compound wall, and issued threats to respondent No.2. The contention of the petitioner that the charge-sheet does not substantiate the alleged acts of demolition or threat is a matter of trial and cannot be gone into at this stage. From a reading of Ground No.18 of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner is attempting to assert a claim over the property despite a subsisting decree and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioner also appears to dispute the title of respondent No.2. 8. In this background, the charge-sheet materials acquire significance and reveal that the case involves triable issues. Any deficiency in the investigation or non- furnishing of documents by the investigating officer cannot be a ground to quash proceedings at the threshold under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such deficiencies, if any, can be addressed by the petitioner during trial. It is well-settled that in criminal proceedings, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In the absence of any material to demonstrate that the prosecution is malicious or that the proceedings are manifestly groundless, and in view of the petitioner continuing to assert title without substantiating the same or producing any documents relating to the civil suit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30342 CRL.P No. 10874 of 2025 allegedly filed against his mother, this Court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK