- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9455 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PUNITH S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO. 839, OPP TO VAJRAGIRI ESTATE, ANJANAPURA, BANGALORE-560062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL SHEKAR K S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. 2. RAVI S/O MUNISWAMAPPA , AMRUTHNAGAR MAIN ROAD, ANJANAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.VIGNESHWARA.U, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.182/2023 U/S 447, 427, 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM) BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.182/2023 of Thalaghattapura PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that complainant is the uncle of petitioner. The father of petitioner Srinivas and his brothers Krishnappa, Venkatesh and Govinda when they were minors, represented by their grandfather Venkatappa, acquired land measuring 4 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.4/4, 4/5 and 4/6 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 South Taluk through registered Sale deed dated 25.04.1958, from one Munishamappa. After the death of Venkatappa, the said Munishamappa being the only legal heir of Venkatappa looked after and managed the property as natural guardian of the minors. The said Munishamappa and his wife Ammayamma sold the said property in favour of Gopalappa, son of Munishamappa, on a condition of re- conveyance. 3. Accordingly, Gopalappa executed Sale deed in favour of M.Krishnappa, son of Munishamappa who was one of the purchaser at the first purchase, through registered Sale deed dated 08.05.1968. Since then, along with M.Krishnappa, Srinivas and his brothers, Venkatesh and Govinda continued to enjoy the said property. Petitioner is the son of Srinivas. Out of the said property, 3 acres 11 1/2 guntas were acquired by BDA. In the remaining property, Krishnappa has gifted 10 guntas each in favour of petitioner's father Srinivas and complainant. They are in possession of respective extent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 In fact, father of petitioner i.e, Srinivas has filed O.S.No.3849/2020 before the Civil Court for partition and other reliefs and it is pending. It is denied that petitioner has committed the alleged offences. Complainant is not the owner of the property and he was not in possession of the said property. Continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of Court and hence the petition. 4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in Keshava Murthy Vs. State by Madanayakanahally PS and Anr. (Keshava Murthy)1. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 - State would submit that on 06.06.2023 at 1:00 p.m, complainant and his family members left to Choultry 1 W.P.No.168/2023 Dt: 20.02.2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 to attend marriage and returned on 07.06.2023 at 2.00 p.m. However, they found that accused and his father have demolished their house and damaged household articles worth ₹15 lakhs using a JCB. Based on the complaint, the concerned police have registered the case and taken up investigation. The allegations require a thorough investigation and it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the father of petitioner Srinivas and his brothers, Krishnappa, Venkatesh and Govinda when they were minors, represented by their grandfather Venkatappa acquired land measuring 4 acres 37 guntas in Sy.Nos.4/4, 4/5 and 4/6 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk through registered Sale deed dated 25.04.1958. Though the said property changed hands, ultimately it came back to the family in the form of sale in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 the name of one of the brother Krishnappa. Out of the said extent, BDA has acquired some portion. It appears out of the remaining extent, major portion is sold to R.Sriram. In the remaining extent, M Krishnappa has retained major portion and executed number of gift deeds in favour of the other sharers, including the complainant and father of petitioner. The portion gifted to the father of petitioner and complainant are adjoining each other. It appears, there is dispute with regard to the situation of residential house of complainant. 8. In this background, it is alleged by the complainant that when he was away to attend a marriage, petitioner has demolished his residential house and damaged the household articles and caused total loss of ₹15 lakhs. Even though the father of petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.3849/2020, seeking partition and separate possession of share, wherein he has made the other sharers as parties and also the purchaser R.Sriram and M/s Anand group, as evident from the document produced - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 by the petitioner on 16.06.2025, he has entered into a compromise with defendant No.1 M.Krishnappa by receiving ₹25,00,000/- and got dismissed the suit. 9. The main allegations against the petitioner is not only that he has trespassed into the property belonging to the complainant, but also demolished his residential house, causing total loss of ₹15 lakhs. Therefore, the requirement of issuing notice as per Karnataka Amendment to Section 447 of Cr.P.C and thereafter registering the case would not arise. Hence, the decision in W.P.No.168/2023 relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. Even though a civil dispute was pending between the parties, it was only with regard to partition. The father of accused No.1 after taking ₹25,00,000/- from the purchaser has compromised the said suit and got it dismissed. Therefore, no longer the civil dispute is pending and it has no relevancy to the allegations made in the complaint. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25287 CRL.P No. 9455 of 2023 10. Consequently, it cannot be said that the present complaint is given a colour of criminal dispute. It is necessary for the concerned police to conduct detailed investigation and ascertain whether the allegations made against the petitioner are true. If the concerned police find that there is no material to proceed against the petitioner, they may file a 'B' report. Therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55