- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5514 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MR. PREMKUMAR CHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. MR. BHYROJI RAO, 2. MR. BHYROJI RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O. LATE. MAHADEV RAO BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.2274, 2ND MAIN, 18TH CROSS, HEBBAL 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570071 ALSO AT VADAKE KATTE, KAVAL VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571 610 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH PRASAD R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION MYSURU - 571 105 2. MR. MAHADEVA RAO M AGED KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS (MAJOR), S/O. MANKOJI RAO JAGTAT, RESIDING AT VADAKEKATTEKAVAL GRAMA, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNASUR TALUK, HUNSUR-571 610 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 2(A) SMT. KAUSALYA BAI WIFE OF LATE SRI. M. MAHADEVARAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2(B) SRI. M. SUDHARSHAN JAGATAP SON OF LATE SRI. M. MAHADEVARAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2(C) SRI. ANIL KUMAR SON OF LATE SRI. M. MAHADEVARAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2(D) SRI. SUNIL KUMAR M. SON OF LATE SRI. M. MAHADEVARAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2(E) MS. POORNIMA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. M. MAHADEVARAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2(F) SRI. M.R. JAGATAP SON OF LATE SRI. M. MAHADEVARAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT HODAKEKATTE KAVAL VILLAGE, KATTEMALALAVADI POST, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 134, MYSURU DISTRICT AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 02.04.2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (A TO F)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND FIR NO.277/2016 IN C.C.NO.511/2017 FILED BEFORE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 MYSURU U/S 447, 506, 323, 34 OF IPC BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BASED ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.06.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A,B) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.511 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur, Mysuru (Crime No.277 of 2016 of Hunsur Rural Police Station), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh Prasad R., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Rajanna, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 filed the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2, alleging that they have illegally trespassed into his land on 27.05.2016, questioned him as to why he is ploughing the land, assaulted him and his son and criminally intimidated to cause their death. The FIR in Crime No.277 of 2016 was registered by Hunsur Rural Police Station and investigation was undertaken. 5. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet, accused No.1 trespassed into the land belonging to CW.6, abused CWs.1, 2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 and 5 in filthy language, picked up quarrel with them, pushed CW.1, assaulted CWs.1 and 5 and criminally intimidated to cause their death. Even though the incident had occurred on 27.06.2016 at 5.30 p.m., the first information came to be lodged only on 02.07.2016 by respondent No.2. Admittedly, he had not sustained any injury in the incident. It is stated that CW.5 has sustained injuries. The copy of the wound certificate pertaining to CW.5 is produced for perusal of the Court by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. According to which, CW.5 had sustained only a scratch mark on outer aspect of the left middle forearm, which is simple in nature. When respondent No.2 had not sustained any injury, he could have filed the first information immediately after the incident. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay caused in filing the complaint. 6. It is pertinent to note that, accused No.1 filed the first information with Hunsur Rural Police Station against respondent No.2 and his children, which was registered in Crime No.269/2016. Filing of the first information by petitioner No.1 was on the same day i.e. 27.06.2016 immediately after the incident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 7. It is brought to the notice of the Court that accused No.1 who had filed the complaint earlier on 09.04.2016 registered in Crime No.126/2016 of Hunsur Rural Police Station, against CW.6 along with others, alleging that he trespassed into the land belonging to accused No.1, committed high-handed acts and removed the boundary stones. He is said to be the neighbouring land owner. 8. Admittedly, CW.6 has filed the suit in O.S.No.128/2016 before the Trial Court against accused No.1, seeking permanent injunction and the said suit is still pending consideration. Accused No.2 being the father of accused No.1, filed O.S.No.332/2016, seeking declaration of his title and for possession of the land, which was encroached by CW.6. This suit is also said to be pending before the Trial Court. Therefore, it is clear that there was dispute regarding identification of the property. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was survey of the land, boundaries were fixed and the stones were put by the accused, which was removed by the adjoining land owners including respondent No.2, CW.6 and others. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 9. In the backdrop of these admitted facts, the delay in lodging the first information by respondent No.2 on 02.07.2016 after lapse of 5 to 6 days after the incident and the nature of injury sustained by C.W.6 assumes importance. When there is no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, the pending criminal and civil dispute between the parties, give raise to a serious doubt, that too when accused No.1 has filed the first information against respondent No.2 and his children promptly on 27.06.2016, which was registered in Crime No.269/2016. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in abuse of process of law only to arm-twist the petitioners to make them to agree for terms. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3068 CRL.P No. 5514 of 2018 (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in CC.No.511/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur, Mysuru (Crime No.277 of 2016 of Hunsur Rural Police Station), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed against the petitioners. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14