- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3962 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI GNANESHWAR T S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHARATHI W/O SRI GNANESHWAR T AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.7, ANAKALAPPA MUTT, 26TH CROSS, CUBBONPET BANGALORE - 560 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR D.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI H. S. PUTTASHANKAR S/O LATE H.S. SHANKARANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 57/2, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, NARAYANA SHETTYPET BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER SRI H.S. PURUSHOTHAMA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 SRI. C. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2545/2018, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1ST ACMM AT BANGALORE AGAINST PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.11809/2016, FOR THE OFFENCE SP/U/S 120B, 427, 448, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. 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 CC.No.2545/2018 (arising out of PCR No.11809 of 2016), pending on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 427, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them and also the order dated 10.03.2017 passed in Crl.R.P.No.11/2017 on the file of the learned LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 2. Heard Sri Shivakumar D.A., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sowmya R., learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Sri C.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 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 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR No.11809/2016 before the Trial Court against the petitioners, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 427, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Initially, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 09.11.2016 dismissing the complaint by holding that the contents of the complaint disclose that the matter is of civil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 nature and there is no question of referring the matter to the police for investigation. 5. Respondent No.2 has preferred Revision in Crl.RP.No.11/2017 on the file of the learned LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-66). The said revision came to be allowed vide order dated 10.03.2017 and directing the learned Magistrate to take the complaint on record and refer the matter to police for investigation. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Halasuru Gate Police Station for investigation, and the FIR in Crime No.153/2017 came to be registered. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points to quash the criminal proceedings: (a) Firstly, that it is only the learned Magistrate who has the power to take cognizance of the criminal offence under Section 201 of Cr.P.C and the Revisional Court lacks such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 jurisdiction. But Section 397 of Cr.PC refers to the exercise of power of revision either by the High Court or by the Sessions Court. There is no restriction on the exercise of the revisional power by the Revisional Court to direct the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence or to refer the matter for investigation. In the present case, the Revisional Court directed the learned Magistrate to refer the matter for investigation not being satisfied with its order, dismissing the complaint at the initial stage, as it is of civil nature. I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the authority of the Revisional Court to issue such a direction. (b) Secondly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Revisional Court at the time of passing the order. The Revisional Court has made it very clear that the private complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was dismissed at the initial stage without referring it to investigation. The accused was not notified by that time. That was not the stage for notifying the accused as it was at the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 stage of taking cognizance and the reasons assigned by the Revisional Court is in accordance with law. When the matter is still at the stage of referring to the police for investigation, the accused is not entitled for notice. (c) The last contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, when the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by holding that no offence was committed and the allegation is purely of civil nature, the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded with. 7. I have gone through the private complaint filed by the respondent and the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. It is the specific contention of the respondent - complainant that the accused had break-opened one of the walls and illegally trespassed into the other portion of the residential house owned by the complainant. When such high handed acts were questioned, he has criminally intimidated to take away the life of the complainant. CWs.3 to 6 are said to be the neighbouring tenants who have given the statements regarding the criminal offence committed by the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 8. The Investigating Officer has drawn the spot mahazar immediately after registration of the FIR. As per this mahazar, the panchas and the Investigating Officer noticed that one of the walls was break-opened to an extent of 3 ft. to have an access to the other portion of the residential house. The statements of the eyewitnesses and the spot mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas make out a prima-facie case about the offence alleged against the petitioners. When such prima-facie case is made out, the contention of the petitioners that the dispute in question is purely of civil nature cannot be accepted. Breaking open the wall of the house, illegally trespassing into the other portion of the building, giving life threat by criminally intimidating the complainant cannot be considered as civil dispute to be decided by the Civil Court. It is purely of criminal nature. Therefore, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Since there are prima-facie materials to proceed against the petitioners, they are not entitled for any relief. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5229 CRL.P No. 3962 of 2018 9. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11