- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11706 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DEEPA R @ PALUR RAMAKRISHNA DEEPA D/O PALUR SADASHIVAN RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING NO.488, 15th CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2nd STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADITYA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. CHARLES LEWIS S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT GM CORPORATE AFFAIRS, NO. 150, 1st FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.0161/2025 REGISTERED BY INDIRANAGAR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 329(4), 351(2) OF BNS, 2023 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE 10TH ADDL. CMM, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the partner of a firm named as M/s. Navaskand INC is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 0161/2025. 2. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that the present petitioner, who was a total stranger to the premises, without any authority, trespassed into the disputed property, forcibly broke open the locks of the shutter, and threatened the security personnel stationed there. Based on this written complaint, the jurisdictional police registered Crime No.0161/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said proceedings on the ground that he has acquired - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 possessory rights over the premises through one Smt. Jaya Appachu, as evidenced by Annexure–C, being a lease agreement dated 10.05.2018. Placing reliance on this lease agreement, the petitioner asserts that he is in lawful possession of the premises and that the dispute between him and respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature. It is contended that respondent No.2 has converted what is essentially a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution by invoking the police machinery, with the ulterior motive of dispossessing the petitioner. On these grounds, the petitioner prays for interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP, drawing attention to the petitioner’s own documents, particularly Annexure–E, points out that the petitioner had earlier instituted O.S. No.25110/2019 before the competent civil Court and subsequently withdrew the said suit, expressly acknowledging therein that he was not in possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record. 6. Respondent No.2 – complainant claims to be in possession of the disputed property on the strength of a registered Assignment of Licence Deed dated 09.06.2025 executed in his favour by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The disputed premises is a commercial shop bearing No.64. On the other hand, the petitioner asserts that he was inducted into possession as a lessee by one Smt. Jaya Appachu under a lease agreement. 7. However, the records produced by the petitioner himself include Annexure–“E”, being a memo dated 13.07.2019, which reveals that the petitioner had earlier instituted a suit for injunction and subsequently withdrew the said suit, expressly acknowledging therein that he was not in possession of the suit schedule property. The order sheet of the Lok Adalat, also produced - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 before this Court, indicates that the learned Judge had recorded the plaintiff’s (petitioner’s) statement that he was not in possession, before permitting withdrawal of the suit. 8. Although learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said memo was not filed by the petitioner and that he had not voluntarily withdrawn the suit, the fact remains that the order permitting withdrawal has not been challenged in any appropriate proceedings and continues to hold the field. 9. In the backdrop of these two crucial pieces of evidence, namely, (i) the petitioner’s recorded statement in the earlier suit admitting that he was not in possession, and (ii) the absence of any challenge to the withdrawal order, the veracity of the petitioner’s present claim of possession requires close scrutiny. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the specific allegations made in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. The relevant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 paragraph of the complaint, which has a direct bearing on the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any indulgence under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at this stage, is extracted herein for ready reference: "We submit that Accused are totally strangers, and they do not have any right title and interest over the Said Premises and on 30.06.2025 morning at 11.30 a.m., Accused without any authority has trespassed into the Said Premises and forcefully break open the Locks of the shutter of the Said Premises and threatened our security personal who are manning the Said Premises. The Photographs are enclosed as Document No.4." On a careful reading of the aforementioned paragraph of the complaint, it is apparent that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, namely that he forcefully broke open the lock of the shutter of the disputed premises and threatened the security personnel stationed there. Such conduct, if true, would constitute criminal offences under the relevant provisions of law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 10. These allegations, when read in conjunction with the petitioner’s own memo filed in O.S. No.25110/2019, wherein he expressly acknowledged that he was not in possession of the suit schedule property, underscore the necessity for a thorough investigation by the competent authorities. The memo and the order permitting withdrawal of the suit form a prima facie record that the petitioner’s claim of possession is highly disputed and contested. 11. In the light of these significant facts and documents, this Court finds that the present case is not one where indulgence under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be granted. The material on record prima facie reveals the possibility of commission of offences, and it is therefore imperative that the Investigating Officer carries out a proper investigation to ascertain the true facts and evidence relating to the alleged incident. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31371 CRL.P No. 11706 of 2025 12. Accordingly, the petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating potential criminality, this Court is of the view that no indulgence can be extended. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46