- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7692 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. NITHYANANDA K S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.264, SRI BHOGANADISHWARA NILAYA, A. NARAYANAPURA DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016. 2. SMT. UMA D/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT NO. 264, SRI BHOGANADISHWARA NILAYA, A. NARAYANAPURA DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016. 3. SRI. PAPAYAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT THAGALIHOSAHALLI, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114. 4. SRI. RAMU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT THAGALIHOSAHALLI JADIGEHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114. 5. SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA @ MUNINARAYANAPPA S/O MALLAIYAPPA AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT THAGALIHOSAHALLI VILLGAGE, JADIGEHALLI HOBLI, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114. 6. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKA THAGALI JADIGEHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK, PIN 562 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 562 114 REPTD. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/ GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 094. 2. NAGARAJACHARI S/O LATE NANJACHARI AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT THAGGALI HOSAHALLI JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK, PIN- 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. S. SIDDALINGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.361/2011 AND CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.501/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL IN RESPECT THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the charge sheet filed against them by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC'). 2. The respondent No.2 lodged information in writing before the respondent No.1 about commission of certain offences, following which, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.361/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 174, 379 read with Section 149 of IPC and took up investigation. After an investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. 3. The Chief Administrative Officer of the trial Court recorded in the order sheet that the cognizance of the offences was taken, which was purportedly counter signed by the Magistrate, following which process was issued to the accused. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 The petitioners being aggrieved by the charge sheet filed against them have filed this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 recorded the further statement stating that the petitioners have not trespassed into the property and have not disturbed his possession. He therefore submits that the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners was wholly unwarranted and the trial Court without looking into this further statement of the respondent No.2 mechanically took cognizance and issued process. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the executing Court had passed an order directing the police to provide protection to the property of the respondent No.2, which was not complied and that the respondent No.2 filed a contempt petition against the police officers, following which, protection was provided and the property of the respondent No.2 is now sufficiently protected. He also submits that all civil suits filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners are decided and that petitioners had filed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after trial, the respondent No.2 was acquitted. He therefore contends that the charge sheet has now spent in itself. He does not dispute the fact that the respondent No.2 has recorded his further statement. In terms of which, he had given a clean chit to the petitioners. 6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 8. A perusal of the further statement of the respondent No.2, which is part of the charge sheet shows that the petitioners were not complicit in offences punishable under Sections 143, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. As a matter of fact, the respondent No.2 himself stated that the petitioners did not cause any disturbance to his possession and that they had - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 only informed him that they would abide by the orders of the Civil Court. 9. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was not justified in taking cognizance and issuing process. 10. Before we part from the case, it is seen from the order sheet that the Chief Administrative Officer of the trial Court has recorded in a cyclostyled form that cognizance of the offences is taken. This indicates that the trial Court had abdicated its responsibility of taking cognizance, which is a solemn duty of the trial Court to the Chief Administrative Officer. This also indicates that the Magistrate did not apply his mind before issuing process to the petitioners. This is yet another reason to halt the facility prosecution launched against the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed; ii. The impugned prosecution of the petitioners and the charge sheet filed against them by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14205 CRL.P No. 7692 of 2018 respondent No.1 in C.C.No.501/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural as well as order dated 09.06.2013 taking cognizance of offences against the petitioners punishable under Sections 143, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18