- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4331 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O SRI. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE OBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SRI. MANOJ R, S/O SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4. SRI. DHANUSH S, S/O SHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KURUDUSONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMARTH S.MURTHY, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S. G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 067, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. ELEYAS D'SOUZA, S/O JOSEPH D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, TRINITY ENCLEVE, KRISELKOTEZ BANJARA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; MISS. LENITA MATHIAS, ADVOCATE FOF R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11012/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 447, 34 OF IPC OF AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Samarth S Murthy learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Miss Lenita Mathias, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.11012/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant and the petitioners are in a squabble with regard to one particular property i.e., Site No.36 in Sy.No.25/3 of Kurudusonnenahalli Village, Bengaluru. Owing to certain allegations of assault, the 2nd respondent-complainant seeks to register a crime in Crime No.108/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 34, 504 and 323 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation in the said proceedings and file a charge sheet against these petitioners for having trespassed into the property and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 assaulted the complainant. The charge sheet is not challenged and the trial is on in the said proceedings. The subject complaint forms an earlier complaint to the one that is registered and the trial is on. The allegations are that the petitioners have indulged in criminal trespass and mischief of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent on the score that the fence that the 2nd respondent-complainant had erected, has been destroyed by the petitioners and have entered into the property. The police after investigation file a charge sheet in the case at hand as well. Filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings are purely civil in nature and cannot be given a colour of crime and it is an abuse of the process of the law for the complainant to set the criminal law into motion for criminal trespass and mischief. Learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon several judgments rendered on the issue, particularly of this Court where it is said that there cannot be criminal trespass into one's own property and had obliterated the proceedings thereon and seek to place - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court to contend that the issue which is purely civil in nature cannot be now be given a colour of crime by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would refute the submission by taking this Court through the sale deeds. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioners had sold their portion of the property to one Sri.Nagendra Reddy. The complainant is a purchaser from the hands of Sri.Nagendra Reddy. They are not in possession of the property at all. Not being in possession of the property, they have trespassed into the property, destroyed the fence and therefore, the offence has sprung. After the registration of the impugned crime, the petitioners had trespassed for the second time and the second crime has resulted in a charge sheet and trial is on in the said charge sheet. The learned counsel would contend that the petition be dismissed and trial be permitted to be continued. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 5. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned counsel for the complainant contending that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners are said to be children of a grantee who was granted land under the provisions at the relevant point in time in the year 1964. They claim to be in possession of the said property since then. Owing to the fact that they were in possession of the property, all these petitioners sell the property i.e., Site No.36 in Sy.No.25/3 to one Sri.Nagendra Reddy on 15.05.2004 and the sale deed has two schedules in it. Therefore, the petitioners prima facie were not in possession of the property. The said Sri.Nagendra Reddy sells the property to the complainant in terms of the sale deed on 19.8.2004 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 which happens three months after the first sale. Sri.Nagendra Reddy has sold site No.36 in Sy.No.25/3 to the complainant. The complainant has put up a fence. The fence is said to have been broken now by the act of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that identical complaint has been registered against the petitioners by the very complainant alleging trespass, assault, intimidation. The said complaint had become a crime in Crime No.108/2023 in which the charge sheet is filed by the police and the trial is on. The offences are identical, the plea is identical, the contention that the complainant is in possession of the property is also identical. Now in the second round of trespass or the first round of trespass prior to the earlier trespass, the petitioners want to contend that they have not trespassed into property of the complainant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would seek to place reliance upon spot mahazar conducted which depicts that there is no layout formed, there is only a vacant land and a fence. Vacant land or fence, whatever the case would be, if the petitioners have accepted the first trespass or the first wrongful restraint of the complainant in his own property, the petitioners cannot now - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 blow hot and cold contending that the property does not belong to them or otherwise. 8. The sale deeds prima facie indicates that the petitioners have indulged in such trespass, albeit prima facie, which would require evidence for the petitioners to prove their case before the concerned Court. In the first blush, the case that is looked into may appear to be civil in nature. The issue is not with regard to the claim over the land. The issue is with regard to trespass into the property. The criminal trespass into the property if accepted by these petitioners in one proceeding, cannot now be said that they have not trespassed and on a specious plea that the property does not belong to the complainant. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the judgment rendered by this Court is on a different circumstance. It is settled law that there cannot be a trespass into one's own property. Sale deeds quoted supra would prima facie indicate that the petitioner is not in the property. Concerning the subject properties, there is no civil suits pending between the parties. Therefore, the matter would tremble down at the first blush since it is civil in nature. It is an - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 issue of trespass and two proceedings are pending. The police after investigation, have filed a charge sheet in the case at hand as well. I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,1 wherein it is held as follows: ".... …. …. 9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove. 9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, there is no warrant of interference at this stage in the case at hand. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2875 CRL.P No. 4331 of 2023 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal petition is rejected. [II] The observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of these petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which would not bind the proceedings before the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:SS