- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14360 CRL.P No. 2765 of 2019 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. 2765 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. MARATHE @ MR. VIJAYARAGHAVA MARATHE S/O LATE M. MAHADEVA MARATHE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SANGVI", NO.25, 2ND CROSS, ASHRAMA ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, K.S.LAYOUT POST, BENGALURU-560 111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHI A.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, SUBRAMANYAPURA SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY-560071 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING. BANGALORE-01. 2. MR. JAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560061 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14360 CRL.P No. 2765 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CR.NO.32/2019 REGISTERED BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, BANGALORE NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 44th A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3, 4 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the registration of an FIR in Cr.No.32/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. The respondent No.2 in terms of a complaint dated 02.02.2019 addressed to the respondent No.1 stated that the petitioner had closed a sanitary pipeline that was installed by the respondent No.2 for public purposes and therefore prayed that action be initiated under Section 480 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Based on such information, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.32/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Being aggrieved by the said registration of FIR, the petitioner is before the Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14360 CRL.P No. 2765 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.1494/2013 against the respondent No.2 as well as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for declaration of his title to the property and for perpetual injunction. He contends that the said suit after trial was decreed and it was declared that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid property. He therefore submits that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner was wholly unwarranted in the light of the decree granted by the Civil Court. He thus contends that the impugned prosecution is liable to be set at nought. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the decree obtained by the petitioner is pending consideration in RFA No.921/2019 filed by respondent No.2 and vide order dated 17.06.2022, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was stayed. She therefore submits that the question whether the petitioner has right over the property or not is yet to be decided. She however contends that the petitioner has challenged an FIR and has obtained an order of stay thereby preventing an investigation into the offences alleged. She therefore prays that the petition be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14360 CRL.P No. 2765 of 2019 dismissed and the way be cleared for the respondent No.1 to investigate the offences. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of his title and for perpetual injunction in O.S. No.1494/2013 in respect of a property bearing Site No.25/3A, Khata No.426, New Municipal Khata No.329/25/3A/330/426 situated at Yalachenahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring east to west 10 feet and north to south 15 feet. The said suit after contest was decreed and it was declared that the petitioner and his wife are the owners of the suit schedule property and the respondent No.2 was restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in the suit schedule property. Long after the suit was filed, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 about the petitioner closing a sanitary pipeline that is on 02.02.2019. 7. In view of the fact that the dispute inter se between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was pending - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14360 CRL.P No. 2765 of 2019 consideration before the Civil Court, the respondent No.1 was not well advised to register an FIR against the petitioner. Consequently, the registration of an FIR against the petitioner is liable to be set aside as the question whether the property belongs to the petitioner or the respondent No.2 is pending consideration before this Court in RFA No.921/2019. 8. In that view of the matter this petition is allowed and impugned FIR brought against the petitioner in Crime No.32/2019 by the respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is quashed. It is needless to mention that respondent No.2 may renew his complaint after disposal of RFA No.921/2019. 11. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48