- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION No.200357 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KONDIBA S/O GOPALRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 402. 2. BALAVANT RAO S/O MADHAVRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 3. SRIKANT S/O BALAVANT RAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 4. JAIDEEP S/O MADHUKAR RAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 5. RAMRAO S/O HANMANTRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 6. RAVIKANT S/O MARUTIRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 7. RANJEET S/O MARUTIRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 8. VILAS S/O HANMANTRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 9. PRAKASH S/O HANMANTRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 10. MANOJ S/O DONDIBARAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 11. UMAKANT S/O PRAKASH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 12. DILEEP S/O MADHUKAR RAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 13. PRADEEP S/O AUDUTRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 14. TRIMBAK S/O SHIVAJI RAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 15. SACHIN S/O SHAHIVARAJ, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 16. LAXMAN S/O HANMANTRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 17. PRAHLAD S/O MADHAVRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 18. SANDEEP S/O ANANDRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 19. DONDIBA S/O GOPALRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 20. RAHUL S/O KONDIBARAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANTANU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE THROUGH JANWADA POLICE STATION, BIDAR RURAL CIRCLE, BIDAR-585 401, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH Court OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI. 2. BHAGWANRAO S/O GUNDERAO PANDRE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE REGISTRING THE FIR IN CRIME No.0019/2025 JANWADA P.S. BIDAR BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 189(2), 190, 324(5), 329(3) OF BNS, 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B ON THE FILE OF THE PENDING BEFORE I ADDL. JMFC COURT BIDAR. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Shantanu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri Sachin M Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita-2023, with the following prayer: “Hence it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal petition and quash the registering the FIR in Crime No.0019/2025, by the respondent No.1-Janwada Police, Bidar, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 189(2), 190, 324(5), 329(3), of BNS 2023 vide Annexure- A and B on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, Bidar, to meet the ends of justice and equity.” 3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 A complaint came to be lodged by Bhagavan Rao, S/o Gunderao Pandre with Janwada Police Station, Bidar Rural Circle, Bidar, on 03.02.2025 which was registered in Crime No.19/2025. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 02.02.2025 there was a meeting between 1.00 am to 4.00 am among the petitioners herein and pursuant to the said meeting, all the petitioners illegally entered the land bearing Sy.No.110 of Honnikeri village and with the aid of an earth mover, demolished the farm house constructed by the respondent No.2 measuring 60 ft. x 80 ft. and thereby caused financial loss to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. It is also contended in the complaint that respondent No.2 had a favourable order in R.A.No.21/2011 which was stayed by this Court in RSA No.7230/2013 and one more suit came to be filed by the accused persons subsequently. Since there was only Order of stay granted by Court in the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal, illegally entering into the land of the complainant and highhandedly demolishing the farm house has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 resulted in commission of a criminal offence and therefore, sought for action. 6. The police, after registering the case, are investigating the matter. 7. Petitioners have challenged the very registration of the FIR on the following grounds: • “That the registering the FIR in Crime No: 0019/2025 by the Respondent No. 1 Police on the basis of false complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, illegal and same is fit to be quashed. • That it is an admitted fact that the R.S.A. Nos. 7230/2013 and 7231/2013 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in respect of land Sy. No. 110 and the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to pass stay order in the above said appeals. But the complainant created the alleged story of demolishing the farm house without any material documents. Hence the present case is of civil nature, but the complainant only to harass all the Petitioners and grab the land has converted the present case in criminal in collusion with the Respondent No. 1 police. Hence registering the FIR in Crime No.0019/2025 by the Respondent No. 1 Police on the false complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 against all the petitioners is fit to be quashed. The copy of stay order passed in RSA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 No.7230/2013 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B. • That it is an admitted that, the petitioners are the Appellant in the RSA pending and also stay is granted in the same Regular Second Appeal. Same is produced in Annexure-B. • It is pertinent to note the here that the petitioners have clicked the pictures of the disputed land where, the complainant is constructing illegally with the GPS location. The same is produced as Anneuxre-C-C1. • It is admitted that the regular second appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Court amended appeal memos in both the connected matters in RSA No. 7230/2013 and 7231/2013 same is produced in Annexure-D. • The original suit which is filed by the complainant is dismissed with cost and same produced in Annexure-E. • It is pertinent to not that till today the Sy.No.110 is on the name of the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-F to F3. • It is also pertinent to note here that, the Respondent No.2 in his complaint not stated that, which Petitioner has unlawfully trespassed in the above said land and demolished the Farm House with the help of JCB and to prove the same he did not produce any valid and material documents, which clearly goes to show that, the Respondent No. 2 is created the story of demolishing the farm house with JCB and caused loss to the tune of Rs.20.00 lakhs on false and baseless grounds. Hence on this ground the registering the FIR - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 in Crime No.0019/2025 by the Respondent No. 1 Police against all the Petitioners on the basis of false complaint filed by the complainant is fit to be quashed. • That the Complainant has filed the complaint on false and baseless grounds only to harass the entire family of the Accused only to harass and gain money from the Accused persons. Therefore registering the FIR in Crime No.0019/2025 by the Respondent No. 1 is perverse and illegal and same is fit to be quashed. • That the complainant filed the petition on false and baseless grounds and not produced any documentary evidence regarding unlawfully trespassed in the above said land and demolished the Farm House with the help of JCB which creates doubt about the alleged incident.” 8. Sri Shantanu, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that in the teeth of the Order of stay passed by this Court in RSA No.7230/2013 and RSA No.7231/2013, the ownership with regard to the land in Sy.No.110 of Honnikeri village does not vest with respondent No.2. But with an intention to gain upper hand in the pending civil litigation, respondent No.2, on his own, demolished the structure and filed a false complaint against the petitioners herein which has not been properly taken note of by the jurisdictional police and hurriedly registered the criminal case for the aforesaid offences - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice, besides abuse of process of law and sought for quashing of the pending FIR. 9. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the police have acted in accordance with law, in view of commission of cognizable offence. 10. They would further contend that very fact of registering the case itself would not amount to abuse of process of law. In the night hours, with the aid of the earth mover, the petitioners have highhandedly demolished the structure which would be investigated by the police in the light of the pending civil dispute and if the police are of the opinion that no offence has been committed by the petitioners, then appropriate report would be filed before the Court. Till such time, the prayer for quashing of the pending FIR cannot be considered and sought for dismissal of the petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.110 of Honnikeri village, there is a civil dispute which is now pending before this Court in the aforesaid Second Appeals. In the meantime, petitioners contend that they filed one more suit. 13. Admittedly there is no Order passed by this Court or any other Court for demolition of the structure existing in the land bearing Sy.No.110 of Honnikeri village. 14. In the absence of any such Order by any competent Court, highhandedly demolishing the structure which was in existence all these years would prima facie make out a case to be registered by the police which has been rightly registered by the jurisdictional police. 15. If at all the allegations made in the complaint are not substantiated by placing necessary material evidence on record by the complainant and his witnesses, invariably the police - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3079 CRL.P No. 200357 of 2025 have to file necessary report before the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of pending FIR. 16. It is too premature in forming opinion that very registration of FIR has resulted in miscarriage of justice besides abuse of process of law having regard to the intrinsic issues involved in the case, especially the demolition of the existing structure. 17. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are not sufficient enough to quash the pending proceedings. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT: AK