- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 297 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVU HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NAYAKARA BEEDI ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 2. MANJUNATHA S/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 3. NAGARAJA S/O LAKSHMAPPA IN FIR MENTIONED AS LAXMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT LINGAYATARA BEEDI ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 4. MALLIKA @ MALLIKARJUN S/O RAMAPPA (WONGLY MENTIONED THE FATHER NAME IN FIR AS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 HANUMANTHAPPA ) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 5. CHANDRASHEKHAR A.M. S/O MALLAPPA @ MALKAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.129, ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 6. SANJAY N Y S/O YANGATAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS AGASERABAGILU BEEDI R/AT ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 7. A M RAJASHEKHARA S/O MALLAPPA @ MALKAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 8. MALLESHAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O AGASERA BAGILU BEEDI ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 9. KIRANA @ KIRANA KUMAR M S/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS VADDARAHATTI ROAD ARAHATHOLAL BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 10. NAGARAJA A.M. S/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A ARAHATHOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 57723 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY HOLEHONNURU POLICE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU 560 001 2. H M ESHWARAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A HANUMATHAPURA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4 SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.378/2024 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HOLEHONNUR POLICE, FIR PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC I COURT BHADRAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 126, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 302(2), 190 OF BNS 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 378/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 189(2), 191(2), 126, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 303(2), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The essence of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 is that the petitioners herein have allegedly trespassed upon the disputed property - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 measuring 28 guntas and have stolen arecanut to the extent of 10 quintals. Based on the written complaint, Crime No.378/2024 was registered. 3. The petitioners, asserting themselves as the lawful owners, seek quashing of the proceedings. They contend that Petitioner No.2, the alleged lawful owner, was dispossessed during the pendency of the injunction suit filed in O.S.No.192/2017. Accordingly, the petitioners argue that no question of theft arises. Given that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that Petitioner No.8 has now instituted a suit for possession based on title in O.S.No.106/2025, the petitioners submit that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defacto complainant contends that the petitioners unlawfully entered the disputed property and committed theft of arecanut amounting to 10 quintals. It is submitted that the present case warrants a full investigation and is not a fit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 case for preemptive quashing, particularly as the investigation is at a nascent stage. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader also supports this position, submitting that the matter requires thorough investigation and no indulgence in the form of quashing is warranted. 6. Upon hearing the counsels, this Court notes that civil suits are pending between the petitioners and Respondent No.2/complainant. Petitioner No.8 had earlier filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.192/2017, asserting absolute ownership of the disputed property on the basis that it is ancestral property. Following trial, and having regard to the survey sketch, the court concluded that the complainant had encroached upon 28 guntas of land and accordingly dismissed the suit on the ground that Petitioner No.8 was not in possession of the property as per the survey. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 7. Subsequent to the dismissal of the injunction suit, Petitioner No.8 has now filed a suit for possession based on title with respect to the disputed property. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph No.31 of the trial court judgment rendered in O.S.No.192/2017, which reads as follows: "31. It is also worth to make note that the entire evidence available on record would clearly goes to show that the plaintiff was not aware about the existence of 26 guntas of suit property belongs to him in Sy. No, 148/3 until the survey conducted in the said property prior to he selling 1 acre 36 guntas of land to one Anith Kumar. It is further evident that, during the survey conducted in the suit property at the time of executing sale deed in favour of Anith Kumar, the plaintiff come to know about the existence of the suit property and the same is in possession of the defendant. It is further evident from the entire evidence that, plaintiff had every knowledge about the encroachment of the suit property very well prior to filing this suit. It is also established that, the plaintiff having full knowledge that, he is not at all in possession of the suit property has filed this suit only based on the revenue entries available in his name. Since the defendnat has rebutted the presumption available in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said revenue entries by leading cogent evidence, the revenue records produced by the plaintiff will not come to his aid to establish his possession over the suit property. When the plaintiff himself know that, he is not at all in possession of the suit property, he cannot maintain this suit for the relief of permanent injunction." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 8. On a closer examination of the findings recorded in the civil suit, it is evident that the survey conducted by the competent authorities indicates that the disputed portion of the property measuring 28 guntas has been encroached upon by Respondent No.2/complainant. This finding led the civil court to dismiss the injunction suit filed by Petitioner No.8 on the ground that he was not in possession of the property. It is well-settled that a suit for injunction simplicitor cannot be maintained in the absence of possession. Furthermore, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Petitioner No.8 has now instituted a separate suit seeking possession based on title. 9. Respondent No.2, however, contends that the survey report indicating the alleged encroachment by him is presently under challenge before the competent appellate authorities, and the appeal is pending consideration. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 10. Having perused the entire material on record, this Court is of the view that the present dispute is fundamentally a civil matter between the petitioners and Respondent No.2, centering on alleged encroachment. The extracted portion of the trial court judgment further underscores that the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged encroachment committed by Respondent No.2. In this context, it is pertinent to note that a comprehensive suit for possession based on title is pending consideration. Until Petitioner No.8 succeeds in establishing his entitlement to possession in the pending civil proceedings, the petitioners cannot assert any possessory rights over the disputed 28 guntas of land. 11. Since the present matter is primarily civil in nature, and the allegation of theft is vague, unspecific, and omnibus in character, no useful purpose would be served in directing the investigating officer to pursue further investigation. The parties are already engaged in litigation before a competent civil court, and Respondent No.2 is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 entitled to safeguard his possession over the disputed property. The petitioners cannot, under the pretext of ownership, trespass onto the disputed land until they secure a decree for possession in accordance with law. 12. In view of the above, it is apparent that the parties are being compelled to face criminal proceedings, which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation. The tendency to lodge multiple FIRs in a matter that is essentially civil in character is evident from the fact that Respondent No.2 has filed a second FIR following registration of the first crime, which led to the filing of a final report that is pending consideration in the connected petition in Crl.P.No.1253/2025. Allowing criminal proceedings to continue in such circumstances would result in unnecessary complications and could constitute an abuse of the process of law. Considering the judgment of the civil court in O.S.No.192/2017 and the survey report indicating that Respondent No.2 has encroached upon the disputed 28 guntas, this Court is of the view that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36046 CRL.P No. 297 of 2025 quashing the criminal proceedings is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 13. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed; ii. The proceedings pending in Crime No.378/2024, registered by Holehonnur Police and pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC-1, Bhadravathi, insofar as they relate to the petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT-SG