- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10428 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA @ MANJULA N W/O LATE RAVI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS (50 YEARS AS ON TODAY) R/AT NO.344, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMUNDINAGARA, R.T.NAGARA POST, BANGALORE – 560 032 AS PER AADHAAR CARD R/AT NO.344, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, OPP CHAMUNDHI TEMPLE, CHAMUNDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE – 560 032. 2. SMT. RATNAMMA W/O TIMMAYYA@THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS (54 YEARS AS ON TODAY), R/AT BANDAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBALI, BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA – 562 101, AS PER AADHAAR CARD R/AT NO.00 BANDAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA THALUKU, MUDDENAHALLI, PO: CHICKBALLAPUR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 KARNATAKA - 562 101. 3. SMT. SUJATHAN SUJATHA D.M W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS (38 YEARS AS ON TODAY) R/AT NO.111. 5TH CROSS, SIMHADRI LAYOUT, BALAJINAGARA, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 061 AS PER AADHAAR CARD C/O MANJUNATHA R/AT NO.01, DODDAMMA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, MUNNARAYANAPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH, RT NAGAR BANGALORE, NORTH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA – 560 032. 4. USHARAANI@USHARANI N W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS (51 YEARSAS ON TODAY) NO.344, 1ST MAIN ROAD, HAL R/AT CHAMUNDINAGARA, R.T.NAGARA POST, BANGALORE – 560 032 AS PER AADHAAR CARD R/AT 607/2, RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, KODIGEHALLI, 2ND CROSS, BANGALORE NORTH, SAHAKARNAGAR P.O BANGALORE, KARNATAKA – 560 092. 5. SMT.KALPANA@KALPANA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. R/AT NO.111, 5TH CROSS, SIMHADRI LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI BANGALORE CHICKBALLAPURA – 560 061, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 AS PER AADHAAR CARD R/AT NO.437/2, CHURCH ROAD, NEAR VISHWAKARMA STORES, FVALLABHANAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA – 560 061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDI GIRIDHAMA POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SRI. GANGADARIAH D, S/O BIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PDO R/AT MUDDENAHALLI PANCHAYTH, NANDI HOBALI, CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 NANDI GIRIDHAMA PS. IN CC.NO.1412/2024 (CRIME NO.72/2024) FOR THE U/S. 149, 427, 34, 504, 201 OF IPC AND U/S. 3 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 THE HONORABLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT CHIKKABALLPURA AND CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.1412/2044 arising out of Crime No.72/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 149, 427, 34, 504, 201 of IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, are seeking quashing of the proceedings. 2. The Panchayath Development Officer (for short, 'PDO') of Muddenahalli Grama Panchayath lodged a complaint before respondent No.1, alleging that the petitioners had illegally trespassed onto government land, severed the water pipeline, and unlawfully removed the pipe and water meter. It is further alleged that upon inquiry with neighbouring residents and during spot - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 inspection, it was confirmed that the accused had dismantled and removed the tap. Based on this complaint, a case was registered, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The petitioners are now seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1412/2024, primarily on the ground that they have been falsely implicated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet, contends that even if the entire charge-sheet material is taken at face value, no offence, much less the offences alleged, is made out against the petitioners. It is further contended that the alleged incident occurred on 09.06.2024 at around 4:00 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged, and the FIR was registered only on 13.06.2024. The learned counsel submits that this delay in lodging the FIR, without any explanation, vitiates the prosecution case and is a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, relying on the charge-sheet materials, submits that the allegations constitute a triable offence. It is submitted that the investigation has been duly conducted and that this is not a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet, this Court finds that the prosecution is relying on the statement of an eyewitness, cited as C.W.4, and the mahazar witnesses, cited as C.Ws.5 to 7. The core allegation is that public property, namely the pipeline laid by the Grama Panchayath, was disconnected and removed. In light of the fact that the charge-sheet discloses the presence of an eyewitness and supporting mahazar witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires trial and cannot be quashed merely on speculative grounds. 6. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30009 CRL.P No. 10428 of 2025 exercised sparingly and only in cases where, even if the allegations in the complaint or the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute any offence. Such power is invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 7. In the present case, the charge-sheet materials prima facie disclose a triable offence. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all permissible defences during the course of trial, including the contention regarding delay in registration of the FIR and the allegation that the present complaint is in retaliation to a complaint lodged by the petitioners. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all grounds during trial, the criminal petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK