- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7190 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. R. HARISH S/O R.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. R. USHA REDDY W/O R. HAREESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.43, 6TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR MATHAJI TEMPLE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.A. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KONANAKUNTE POLICE, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SATHISH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1, SOUTH SUB-DIV(PLANNING) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, B.D.A. COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 562 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.12479/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE'S PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers: "(i) call for records, if necessary; (ii) Quash the Charge sheet in CC No.12479/2022, on the file of the 2nd Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the offence's punishable u/secs.447 r/w 34 of IPC, against the Petitioners; (iii) Set aside the order dtd: 20.04.2022, passed in CC 12479/2022, pending on the file the 2nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the offence's punishable u/secs. 447 r/w 34 of IPC, against the Petitioners., (iv) Grant such other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass, in the circumstances of the case, to stall the abuse of process of Court, in the interest of justice." 2. Survey No.45/2 of Kottanur Village has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA') by issuing a final notification dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 19.10.1994. It is submitted that thereafter, a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been passed recording the fact of taking possession of the property concerned. Thereafter, the petitioners claiming to be the owners of a site bearing Nos.39 and 48 formed in the said survey number were found to be building a compound wall. Hence, respondent No.2, who is an officer of the BDA, filed a complaint with respondent No.1-Police and C.C.No.12479/2022 for the offence under Section 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') has been registered against the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the property concerned. They have also produced a copy of the khatha issued by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the BBMP') in respect of the said two sites and claim lawful possession of the same. On - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 the said ground, it is prayed that the criminal petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, upon instructions, submits that the property concerned has been acquired by the BDA in accordance with law and the possession has also been taken and it is also submitted that the acquisition was challenged before this Court and the same has been upheld. It is also submitted that the original owners have withdrawn the compensation. It is further submitted that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers who, under law, cannot have any right, title, or interest. As the petitioners were building a compound wall unauthorisedly and illegally, a complaint has been lodged. On the said ground, it is prayed that the criminal petition be dismissed. 5. An act may be illegal but not necessarily criminal. The aggrieved person can always have his remedy under the Civil Law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 6. Section 441 of the IPC defines criminal trespass as follows: "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 commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”." 7. This Court in Criminal Petition No.2776/2022 in paragraph No. 16 has held as under: "16. The facts obtaining in the case at hand are clearly different from the facts obtaining before the Apex Court. The case at hand is for offence under Section 447 of the IPC, for which the most relevant factor would be exclusive possession of the property, on which the accused is alleged to have trespassed. If exclusive possession is not with the complainant, the complaint of criminal trespass into the property and damage to that property under Section 427 of the IPC can hardly be alleged, as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 observed hereinabove. The petitioners have also placed abundant material by way of documents that are unimpeachable and of sterling quality, which would undoubtedly overpower the documents and submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. If Sections 427 and 447 of the IPC cannot be seen to be present in the case at hand, the other offences for the ones punishable under Sections 448, 506 and even 143 of the IPC can hardly be alleged, as Section 447 deals with criminal trespass into a property. Section 448 makes house trespass a punishment and Section 427 damage to the property by way of mischief." 8. In the instant case, rightly or wrongly, the khatha in respect of the property concerned issued by the BBMP stands in the names of the petitioners herein. On the strength of it, they are claiming possession over the same. Khatha does not confer any title on the property. However, it is a document that can be used to prove possession. The BDA may have all the rights in respect of the property concerned, taking into consideration the fact that the final notification has been issued and a 16(2) notification under the Land Acquisition Act has also been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 issued showing that they have taken possession of the property. They may have all the rights to demolish the construction put up by the petitioners or any other person on the property concerned and they may have a right to form a layout on the property and alienate it in favour of third parties. However, as the petitioners are having khatha in their favour, the act of the petitioners may not amount to criminal trespass as contemplated in law. For that reason, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in the criminal case against the petitioners herein. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.12479/2022, pending on the file of II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46174 CRL.P No. 7190 of 2022 insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein are concerned, stand quashed. iii. However, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the BDA enforcing its rights or utilizing the land concerned in the manner known to law. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18