- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:603 CRL.P No. 102430 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102430 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. GADDI BASAVARAJ S/O. BASAPPA AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 123, WARD NO.4, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220.. 2. SMT. GADDI MANJAPPA S/O. BASAPPA AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO. 123, WARD NO.4, HARAPANHALLI ROAD, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 3. SMT. GADDI VEERAMMA W/O. GADDI BASAVRAJ AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.82/2, HARAPANHALLI ROAD, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAY NAGAR-583220.. 4. SHRI. GADDI KOTRESHI S/O. GADDI BASAVARAJ AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 123, WARD NO.4, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 5. SHRI. GADDI SIDDESHA S/O. GADDI BASAVARAJ AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. ARICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 123, WARD NO.4, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 6. SMT. GADDI SUNITA D/O. GADDI BASAVARAJ AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO. 123, WARD NO.4, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.17 16:32:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:603 CRL.P No. 102430 of 2022 DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 7. SHRI. H.M.KOTRAYYA S/O. SHEKARAYYA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 44, WARD NO.2, HARAPANHALLI ROAD, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 8. SMT. H.M.SARVAMANGALA W/O. H.M.KOTRAYYA AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.447, WARD NO.2, KYATHANARA ONI, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 9. SHRI. H. VRISHBENDRAPPA S/O. SOMESHEKHARAPPA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 87, WARD NO.3, CHIKKANAVARA ONI, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. 10. SHRI. H.SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O. H.KOTRABASAPPA AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO. 3, ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITTAGI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. GADDI PATHREMMA W/O. VEERANNA AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR-583220. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SOMASHEKAR B. ANCHATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:603 CRL.P No. 102430 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, ALLOW THE PETITIONERS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 10 IN CC NO.160/2022 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOOVINA HADAGALLI, BALLARI FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 426, 447 AND 506 OF IPC 1860. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), alleging that a permanent decree was passed in O.S. No.20/2003, restraining the petitioners from interfering with the complainant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Despite the decree being in force, the petitioners allegedly criminally trespassed onto the property on 28.08.2016, obstructed the complainant from removing trees and bushes, and threatened the complainant and her children with dire consequences. 2. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered an FIR, conducted an investigation, and submitted a B’ report, stating that there was no material to substantiate the claim of criminal trespass by the petitioners. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a protest petition against the B’ report. The learned Magistrate, after rejecting the `B’ report, took cognizance of offences - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:603 CRL.P No. 102430 of 2022 punishable under Sections 143, 426, 447, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and issued summons to the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. During the investigation, the police recorded the statements of the complainant and the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident. While the complainant claimed that the petitioners had criminally trespassed into the property, the alleged eyewitnesses did not support this claim. In fact, the eyewitnesses stated that they would not interfere with the complainant’s peaceful possession of the subject property in compliance with the permanent decree passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court. 5. Even assuming the petitioners entered the subject property, there is no material to substantiate that they trespassed with the intent to commit an offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy the complainant, as required to establish the offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 of IPC. Thus, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 447 are absent. 6. The police, after completing the investigation, rightly filed a ‘B’ report. The learned Magistrate, ignoring the absence of material evidence and the legal requirements under Section 447 of IPC, erroneously rejected the B’ report and took cognizance of the offences. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:603 CRL.P No. 102430 of 2022 7. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.160/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina Hadagalli, Ballri, insofar as the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 10 is hereby quashed. iii) The petitioners undertake not to disobey the judgment and decree passed by the jurisdictional Civil Judge, wherein they have been restrained from interfering with the complainant’s possession over the subject property. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52