- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. LATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O NAGARAJU, R/AT NO.268, BAGLUR, BANGLAORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 562149. 2. MRS. CHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O L SAMPANGI, R/AT NO.315, NEAR POLICE STATION BAGLURU, BAGALUR, BANGALORE 562149. 3. MR. M.R.MARUTHI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O M RAMANJANAYULU, R/AT NO.15, 10TH MAIN, N. P. ARCADE, PATTEGARA PALYA MAIN ROAD, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560079. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKASH V T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BAGALUR PS, SAMPIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY - 560 064. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SANDEEP SINGH H S/O LATE HARISINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, REVENUE OFFICER, JALA HOBLI, BAGLUR TALUK, YALAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. JAGADISH G. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE R1 POLICE UNDER SECTION 192(A)(1), 192(A)(3), 192(A) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND SECTION 506, 120B, 420, 465, 415, 463 AND 464 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IN CRIME NO.359/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DEVANAHALLI AT ANNEXURE-A AND B, AS PER AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This criminal petition is instituted by the petitioners, who include the original grantee (arrayed as accused No.2) as well as certain subsequent purchasers, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in Crime No.359/2023. The said case is presently pending before the Court of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devanahalli and has been registered by respondent No.1–Police for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A)(1), 192(A)(3) and 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Sections 506, 120B, 420, 465, 415, 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The genesis of the proceedings lies in a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – the Revenue Officer, who alleged that the petitioners had forged revenue records in respect of the disputed land. Acting upon the said complaint, respondent No.1 registered Crime - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 No.359/2023, arraying the petitioners as accused for the aforementioned offences under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the IPC and placed the matter before the learned Magistrate at Devanahalli. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, drawing attention to the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner No.2 is the original grantee of the land in question, having acquired title pursuant to a valid grant issued by the competent authority. He has invited the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(BNA) No.299/2017-18, particularly paragraph No.5 thereof. On a detailed consideration of the original records, the Assistant Commissioner has categorically concluded that the land was granted in favour of petitioner No.2, and that a saguvali chit was issued after collection of the upset price. Reliance is also placed on a writ of mandamus issued by this Court, directing the revenue authorities to carry out the necessary mutation in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 name of the grantee, the entry in the khata having been omitted during the process of computerisation of the RTC. It is therefore urged that, in the light of these authoritative findings, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. 4. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition and supporting the averments made in the statement of objections as well as the vacating application, contends that the investigation has revealed prima-facie material to proceed against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this is not a fit case for interference at the threshold. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2–complainant has also adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. This Court has carefully heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent– - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2– complainant. The entire record, including the materials produced by both sides, has been meticulously examined for the purpose of determining whether the continuance of the proceedings in Crime No.359/2023 is warranted. 6. On a careful perusal of Annexure–C, it is evident that the competent Authority had granted the land in favour of petitioner No.2 by its order dated 18.04.1982. The next document of significance which merits consideration by this Court is the judgment rendered by the Assistant Commissioner while deciding the appeal in R.A.(BNA) No.299/2017-18. Particular reference is required to paragraph No.5 of the said judgment, which deserves to be noticed and taken into account by this Court. The relevant portion reads as under: "5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Appellant was granted 2.00 Acres of land in Sy. No.177 situated at Bagaluru Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Additional Taluk, by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, vide his O.M.No.DIS.LND.SR. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 584/1982-83 dated 30.08.1982 as per Annexure-A and subsequently, Saguvali Chit was also issued by collecting the upset price on 12.07.1985 as per Annexure-B. Further, based on Saguvali Chit, Katha had also been effected in the name of the Appellant vide M.R.53/1988- 89 dated 07.02.1989 as per Annexure-C and consequently, her name has also been incorporated in the RTC for the years 1988-89 to 1992-93; 1993-94 to 1997-98 and 1997-98 to 2001-02 as per Annexure-D1 to D.3. It is also seen that the said RTC entries thereafter had been discontinued by the authorities without assigning any reasons and without passing any order and without any notice, hearing and opportunity to the Appellant. The impugned action of the Respondent in discontinuing the name of the Appellant in the RTC records from 2002-03 onwards till date is arbitrary and contrary to law since no order is passed by assigning reasons and even without any notice to the Appellant. Hence, the impugned action of the respondent warrants interference by this Court and the above Appeal has to be allowed." 7. On a meticulous examination of the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, as extracted above, this Court is satisfied that the grant made in favour of petitioner No.2 has been held to be genuine and valid. The Assistant Commissioner, while adjudicating the appeal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 in R.A.(BNA) No.299/2017-18, has referred in detail to the original records maintained by the Revenue Department. It has been clearly found that, apart from the original grant order issued on 18.04.1982, a Saguvali Chit was also issued in favour of petitioner No.2 after collecting the requisite upset price on 12.07.1985. The Assistant Commissioner has further noticed that, pursuant to the issuance of the Saguvali Chit, the khata of the property was duly entered in the name of petitioner No.2 under MR No.53/1988-89 dated 07.02.1989. 8. A further perusal of the order of this Court at Annexure–G discloses that, after an independent verification of the records, this Court has already issued a mandamus to the concerned Revenue Officials directing them to mutate the name of petitioner No.2 in the RTC extract. When these documents and findings are examined cumulatively, they leave no manner of doubt that the grant in favour of petitioner No.2 stands conclusively established. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 9. In this backdrop, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, which forms the very basis of registration of Crime No.359/2023, appears on its face to be frivolous and untenable. Respondent No.2, who has no demonstrable locus to dispute the grant, has nevertheless set the criminal law in motion, resulting in the registration of a crime against the petitioners. The records also reveal that the criminal proceedings were triggered only after the grantee sought initiation of phodi proceedings for sub- division of the land, placing reliance upon the grant order and related documents. Such action on the part of the Revenue Officials, in entertaining a baseless complaint and proceeding to register a case, is wholly unjust, unreasonable, and has subjected the petitioners particularly the original grantee to unwarranted hardship and harassment. 10. Having regard to the undisputed documentary evidence establishing the lawful title of petitioner No.2, as well as the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings, the continuation of the impugned criminal case would clearly amount to an abuse of the process of law. This Court, therefore, finds it to be a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent further misuse of the criminal process. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.359/2023 registered by respondent No.1–Police for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A)(1), 192(A)(3), 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Sections 506, 120B, 420, 465, 415, 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and presently - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36164 WP No. 1388 of 2024 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devanahalli, are hereby quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6