- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2793 CRL.P No. 102187 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102187 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SIDRAMAPPA NARAYANAPPA MANNAPUR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. CA, R/O. JOSHIGALLI, ILKAL, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. GANGADEVI W/O. SIDRAMAPPA MANNAPUR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT. 3. VEERABHADRA S/O. NARAYANAPPA MANNAPUR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT. 4. HRUSHIKESH S/O. SIDRAMAPPA MANNAPUR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011, THROUGH ILKAL POLICE STATION, ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2793 CRL.P No. 102187 of 2023 2. ANAND KRISHNA MANNAPUR AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S 482 OF CRPC SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ILKAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 27/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT HUNGUND REGISTERED BY THE ILKAL TOWN POLICE STATION FOR THE O/P/U/S 454, 457, 380 OF IPC. 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. The registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 34, 504, 454, and 448 of the IPC is impugned in this petition. 2. Respondent No.2 lodged a First Information Report on 16.04.2023, stating that on 11.08.2022 a complaint was filed with the District Superintendent of Police, Bagalkot, alleging that the petitioner had stolen electrical articles from the subject house by breaking open the lock and criminally trespassing on 09.08.2022. The Police Sub-Inspector did not take any action against the petitioners and closed the complaint. 3. The complaiant states that he was informed by an electrician that the air conditioner belonging to Respondent No.2, is installed in the petitioner’s house, which had been stolen, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2793 CRL.P No. 102187 of 2023 thereby necessitating appropriate criminal action against the petitioners. 4. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 had borrowed a loan from the Vijay Mahantesh Co-Operative Bank, Ilkal; having defaulted in repayment, the bank initiated proceedings for loan recovery, an award was passed, and, upon Respondent No.2’s failure to satisfy the award, took physical possession of the subject property on 17.06.2019. This is evidenced by the communication dated 18.01.2021 issued by the bank to the jurisdictional police, along with the statement of objections, as produced by Respondent No.2. 5. The subject house was conveyed to the petitioner in a public auction, and a registered sale deed was executed in favor of the petitioners on 07.01.2021. Respondent No.2 challenged the entries mutated in favor of the petitioners following the execution of the registered sale deed before this Court in W.P. No.105319/2021, and this Court initially granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to the entries in the revenue records. Additionally, Respondent No.2 challenged the transfer of property in favor of the bank and the subsequent auction in W.P. No.105928/2022. That writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that an application for recall has been filed and is pending consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the subject house, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2793 CRL.P No. 102187 of 2023 having acquired it in a public auction. They were put in possession of the subject house, as evidenced by the registered sale deed executed in their favor, and their names have subsequently been mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, since Respondent No.2 was not in possession of the subject property, the allegation that the petitioner committed theft of the articles within the subject house is unfounded. 7. In response, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the physical possession of the subject house was not taken in a manner prescribed by law. 8. He further submitted that, in the first complaint, the bank manager’s statement was recorded in which the bank manager stated that the articles present in the subject house were not entrusted to the bank. 9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 10. Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as the dishonest taking of any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, with the intention of such appropriation. Section 380 deals with the commission of theft in a dwelling house. In the instant case, Respondent No.2 was neither in possession of the subject house nor of the articles in question. Consequently, the allegation that the petitioner committed theft of the articles in the subject house is without merit, as Respondent No.2 was not in possession of the subject house on 09.08.2022. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2793 CRL.P No. 102187 of 2023 11. Section 454 of the IPC deals with the punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. 12. Section 457 of the IPC deals with the punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. 13. Admittedly, the subject house, originally belonging to Respondent No.2, was conveyed to the petitioner in a public auction through a registered sale deed, under which the petitioners were put in possession of the subject house. This clearly implies that Respondent No.2 was not in possession of the subject house. 14. Therefore, the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Sections 454 and 457 of the IPC are conspicuously absent. The bank manager had also initiated criminal proceedings against Respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 454, and 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Respondent No.2 challenged these proceedings before this Court in Cr.P. No.101373/2022 and connected petitions, and this Court, vide order dated 15.09.2023, dismissed the petition, holding that the present proceedings cannot be used as a tool to decide the civil rights of the parties or determine possession. If any party wishes to establish possession or assert title over the property, they are at liberty to do so in the appropriate forum. The property records show that the subject house is in the name of the petitioners. If Respondent No.2 claims any right over the articles - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2793 CRL.P No. 102187 of 2023 that were in the subject house, he is free to approach the appropriate forum seeking damages or recovery of the articles. 15. Accordingly, the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 alleging theft of articles by the petitioner appears to be motivated by an intention to exact vengeance and to pressurize the petitioners into reaching a settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned First Information Report in Crime No.0089/2020 registered by the Police station, Ilkal is hereby quashed. iii. The observation made in this order in relation to possession of the subject house is only for the present petition and it is open for the respondent No.2 to establish his possession of subject house in the manner known to law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59