- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.10228 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANANDA SUVARNA S/O. LATE RAM SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O. MRS.SHAILAJA, SHIVANANDA, BEHIND JARAPPA HOUSE, PADUBIDIRI VILLAGE, UDUPI-574 111. 2. ABHISHEK A SUVARNA S/O. LATE AMBARISH SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND POST OFFICE, MALPE, KODAVOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI-576 108. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.A. ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALPE POLICE, UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 2. SMT. DAYAVATHI M SUVARNA W/O. MAHADEV RAM SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROP. SAI INDUSTRIES, BADANIDIYOOR, BADANIDIYOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI-576 108. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP., FOR R.1; SRI NATARAJ BALLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 (ABSENT)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1006/2021 REGISTERED BY THE MALPE POLICE, UDUPI (RESPONDENT NO.1) IN CRIME NO.56/2020, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427, 506, 504, 447 READ WITH 34 OF IPC., AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners and second respondent are said to be relatives. It is further submitted that they had certain property dispute and civil proceedings is said to be pending amongst them. In the meanwhile, it is complained by second respondent that on 03.08.2020 at about 9.30 a.m. the petitioners herein illegally trespassed upon the property of the husband of the second respondent and cut the pipeline through which water was being supplied from the well located on the property of the husband of the second respondent to the ice plant being run by the husband of the second respondent and thereby, caused a loss of Rs.1,000/-. When the employees of the husband of the second respondent protested the same, the petitioners are said to have abused them in filthy language and threatened them. 2. The complaint of the second respondent has culminated in C.C.No.1006/2021 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi and the petitioners herein have been charged with commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 3. The case of the petitioners is that the complaint is concocted and that they have not committed the offences as alleged. It is further submitted that because of a civil dispute pending amongst the parties, a false complaint is lodged by second respondent. It is further submitted that even as per the complaint, only a sum of Rs.1,000/- loss is caused to the husband of the second respondent and if the second respondent wants it, the petitioners are willing to compensate the said sum with interest. It is also contended that even if the allegations are taken to be true, they do not constitute an offence under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC. 4. It is further submitted that the complaint is filed only to harass the petitioners. Presently, the second petitioner is not an ordinary resident of India and is residing abroad, and filing of this case has caused undue hardship to him. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, it is prayed that the petition be allowed as prayed for. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, upon instructions, submits that though the loss caused to the second respondent appears to be trivial in nature and though there appears to be a civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2, the allegations made in the complaint does constitute offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed and the statements of witnesses have been recorded, who have clearly deposed that the petitioners herein indeed trespassed into the property of the husband of the second respondent and illegally severed the pipeline running from the well to the ice plant and when they protested, petitioners abused them and threatened them with dire consequences if they come in the way. 8. Section 427 pertains to mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees and it reads as under:- "427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 9. Section 447 pertains to Punishment for criminal trespass while Section 441 defines criminal trespass, which reads as under:- "447. Punishment for criminal trespass.- Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." "441. Criminal trespass.- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass". 10. Section 504 pertains to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and it reads as under:- "504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.- Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 11. Section 506 pertains to punishment for criminal intimidation. 12. Section 34 pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and it reads as under:- "34. Acts done by several persons in futherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 13. A bare reading of the aforementioned provisions and the allegations made in the charge sheet against the petitioners herein does satisfy the ingredients of the aforementioned Sections. 14. Further according to the prosecution, the investigation reveals that eye witnesses have spoken as to the petitioners having committed the said offences. Whether the same are true or false is a subject matter of trial. 15. However, trivial the loss caused to the husband of the second respondent may be, as the allegations made and the investigation reveal a prima facie case of commission of the offences, it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 16. Whether genuinely petitioners committed the said offences or a false complaint is made against them because of a pendency of a civil dispute, is also a matter of trial. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41958 WP No. 10228 of 2022 17. However, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the offences alleged are not of a heinous crime, the procedure of trial should not cause undue harassment to the petitioners herein. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court is expected to consider the request of the petitioners for exemption from personal appearance favorably particularly, in respect of petitioner No.2 who is said to be residing abroad and it should insist upon securing their presence only when it is really very essential. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed subject to the observations made in paragraph No.17 supra. 19. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15