- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6892 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6893 OF 2019 IN CRL.P No. 6892/2019 BETWEEN: DR T S HEMANTH S/O LATE T V SHIVASHANAKRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O "HEMAKUNJA" BASAVESHWARA STREET, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMANGALURU DISTRICT. ALSO RESIDENT OF VRINDAVANA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, NEXT TO OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE) AND: G ARMUGAM S/O LATE V M GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF VMG BUILDING, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 SOWLANGA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE (AB)] THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.2221/2012 IN TAKING COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 31.08.2012 OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 200,209,406,417,420,434,465,468,471 R/W 34 OF IPC AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.2221/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 200,209,406,417, 420,434,465,468,471 R/W 34 OF IPC. IN CRL.P NO. 6893/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI T V SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SMT.PRABHAVATHI W/O T V SHIVSHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. T S CHETHAN S/O T V SHIVSHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O "HEMAKUNJA" BASAVESHWARA STREET, TARIKERE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE) AND: G ARMUGAM S/O LATE V M GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O VMG BUILDING SOWLANGA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. ...RESPONDENT [BY SRI SATHEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE (AB)] THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.2221/2012 IN TAKING COGNISANCE ORDER DATED 31.08.2012 OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 200, 209, 406, 420, 434, 465,468, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.RP NO.83/2015 DATED 29/06/2019 III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA AND QUASH THE PROCEEDNIGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.2221/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 200, 209, 406, 420, 434, 465, 468, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 31.08.2012 passed by III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga in CC no.2221/2012 issuing process as well as challenging entire proceedings therein registered for offences punishable under Sections 200, 209, 406, 417, 420, 434, 465, 468, 471 readwith Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), this petition is filed. 2. Sri SB Totad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner in Criminal Petition no.6892/2019 was accused no.4 while petitioners in Criminal Petition no.6893/2019 were accused no.1 to 3 in a private complaint filed by respondent in PCR no.120/2012, alleging that accused were hailing from an influential family in Shivamogga. That first accused was a MLA seat contestant, had influence with top officials. That ancestral properties of accused were adjoining to complainant’s property. One Ratnamma had purchased Site - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 no.1 carved out in Sy. no.30/2, measuring 3 guntas and 1 anna under registered Sale Deed dated 04.03.1963. Though accused were having knowledge about purchase of land by complainant, they had with criminal intent to grab property shown extent of their site as 4 guntas and at time of mutation succeeded in getting it for 5 guntas instead of actual extent of 3 guntas 1 anna. It was further stated that an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. no.19/1 adjoining Sy. no.30/2, belonged to father of complainant and his partner one R Kannan on purchase under registered Sale Deed dated 23.01.1960 which accused persons claim to have purchased. There was dispute about sharing of said land between partners. It was further stated that accused no.6 was a client of complainant and had represented him in various matters. Since accused no.6 was relative of accused no.1 to 5, they instigated him to distance away from complainant, due to which, complainant had to give no objection in various engagements without settlement of fee. Thereafter, with intention of making wrongful gain, accused no.1 to 5 had sought to encroach upon complainant's land. By above acts, accused had committed offences punishable under - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 Sections 193, 200, 209, 406, 417, 420, 434, 465, 468, 471 readwith Section 34 of IPC, and sought for taking action. 3. On receipt of complaint, trial Judge recorded sworn statement of complainant and proceeded to pass impugned order dated 31.08.2012 taking cognizance of offences against accused and for issuance of process, but dropping charges against accused no.7 and 8. Aggrieved by order taking cognizance, accused no.1 to 3 and 6 filed Criminal Revision Petition no.83/2015. Under order dated 29.06.2019, Criminal Revision came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by order of trial Court taking cognizance on 31.08.2012 as well as order dated 29.06.2019 dismissing Criminal Revision Petition filed there against, these petitions are filed. 4. It was firstly submitted that several of offences alleged were cognizable in nature. Without complying with mandatory requirement of approaching SHO of jurisdictional police station and thereafter in case of refusal to register complaint, the Superintendent of Police, private complaint was filed. Apart from above, complaint averments would indicate that dispute was purely civil in nature. Without considering said - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 aspect order taking cognizance and issuance of summons was passed and same was liable to be quashed. On said grounds sought for allowing petition. 5. It was submitted that Criminal Petition no.6893/2019 was filed by accused no.4 on similar grounds and sought for allowing same. 6. None appears for respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned orders as well as material on record. 8. These petitions are by accused no.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, challenging order taking cognizance as well as challenging entire proceedings initiated against them based on a private complaint filed by respondent-complainant. Challenge is on two main grounds. Firstly, non-compliance with mandatory requirement under Section 154(3) of CrPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr v. State of U.P.& Ors reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 has held requirement of compliance with Section 154(3) of CrPC mandatory. Perusal of averments in private complaint do not - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 indicate compliance with Section 154(3) of CrPC. Non- compliance with said requirement would be fatal. Apart from above, perusal of private complaint would indicate that main grievance of complainant is about accused encroaching or claiming title over complainant's land which would be purely civil in nature and complainant would require to resort to civil proceedings for same and initiation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process. It is held in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 that resort to criminal prosecution in case of purely civil disputes would amount to abuse of process. It is also held that High Court in a petition under Section 482 on perusal of complaint averments would find dispute to be purely civil in nature, it should not hesitate to quash proceedings. Following said ratio, proceedings would require to be set at naught. 9. In view of above, petitions are allowed, proceedings in order dated 31.08.2012 passed by III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga in CC no.2221/2012 and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Criminal Revision Petition no.83/2015 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010275942019 NC: 2026:KHC:42840 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6893 of 2019 and entire proceedings in CC no.2221/2021 stand quashed insofar as petitioners - accused no.1 to 4 are concerned. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13