- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 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. 1253 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MALLESHAPPA M. S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. KIRAN KUMAR. M S/O. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 3. MALLIKA @ MALLIKARJUN S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. NAGARAJA A. M. S/O. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 5. SANJAY N. Y. S/O. YANGATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 6. N. R. YAGATAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 7. VINAY. A. C. S/O. CHIDHANANDA A.B., Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 8. MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O. GADALHATTI BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 9. A. M. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. MALKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT ARAHATHOLALU, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-57723 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY HOLEHONNUR 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/O. ARAHATHOLALU, BHADRAVATHI TALLUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-57723. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4 SRI. RAMACHANDRA R NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.338/2024 FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT HOLEHONNUR POLICE, FIR PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC-1 COURT BHADRAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 190 OF BNS, 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 338/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 329(4), 126(2) 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The essence of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is that the petitioners herein allegedly trespassed upon the disputed property measuring 28 guntas and unlawfully removed arecanut amounting to 20 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 to 25 quintals. On the basis of the written complaint, Crime No.338/2024 was registered. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1, and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader strongly resisted the petition, contending that since the charge sheet has already been filed, this case is not amenable to interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This Court, however, specifically directed both the learned High Court Government Pleader and the counsel for respondent No.2 to point out, from the charge sheet materials, any incriminating evidence supporting the commission of an offence under Section 303 of the BNS Act, 2023. Despite their efforts, neither was able to identify any such materials. The charge sheet merely records the seizure of an empty vehicle and a bike, allegedly used in connection - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 with the alleged theft, but contains no direct evidence implicating the petitioners. 5. In view of the absence of any incriminating material, this Court considers it appropriate to extract paragraph 31 of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court 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." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 6. On a careful reading of paragraph No.31, extracted supra, together with the survey sketch produced and marked in the civil proceedings, it becomes evident that respondent No.2/complainant has encroached upon the disputed extent of 28 guntas. The Civil Court, in O.S.No.192/2017, declined to grant an order of injunction in favour of petitioner No.1 on the ground that he was not found to be in possession of the said land. The survey sketch clearly indicates that respondent No.2 is in possession of the property in dispute. 7. When the entire charge-sheet materials are examined in conjunction with the findings recorded by the Civil Court, it is manifest that the controversy between the parties is essentially the subject matter of civil litigation, where a suit for possession is already pending after the dismissal of the injunction suit. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that, instead of pursuing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 remedy in the civil forum, the parties are resorting to criminal prosecution in respect of the same subject matter. 8. In the case at hand, even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken at their face value in their entirety, the ingredients constituting the offence of criminal trespass cannot be said to be satisfied. Respondent No.2 is admittedly in possession of the disputed 28 guntas, and the petitioners, after suffering dismissal of their earlier suit for injunction, have now been compelled to institute a suit for possession to vindicate their rights. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, and that the criminal process is being invoked to give a colour of criminality to a dispute regarding possession and title, this Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on a pointed query from the Court, fairly submitted that petitioner No.1, having suffered an adverse decree in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 O.S.No.192/2017 (a suit for injunction simplicitor), has now instituted O.S.No.106/2025 seeking possession of the disputed land on the basis of title. He also candidly conceded that the very act of filing a suit for possession implies that respondent No.2 is, as on date, in possession of the property. In view of the admitted position and in light of the pendency of the suit for possession, this Court finds that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue would only multiply proceedings and cause unnecessary harassment, apart from defeating the ends of justice. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed. ii. The proceedings in Crime No.338/2024, registered by Holehonnur Police and presently - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36047 CRL.P No. 1253 of 2025 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC-I, 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.: 0 CT-SG