Accused Nos.2 and 3 sought quashing of charge sheet for trespass, mischief and forgery offences in a property dispute. The court held BDA acquisition vested title in BDA, so sale by original owner to petitioners gave no right; prima facie material existed and no mini trial was possible under Section 482.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1170 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:10098 CRL.P No. 1170 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 045.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S.RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY KADUGONDANA HALLI P.S. i.e 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.58760/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 468, 471, 420, 447, 427, 204 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PENDING BEFORE THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.58760/2018 arising out of Crime No.443/2016 registered by the Kadugondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 447, 427, 204 read with Section 34 of IPC.
No.2 filed a complaint on 05.10.2016 alleging that he has been allotted a site by the BDA on 17.02.2010 by possession certificate as well as lease cum sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2. A rectification deed also executed in the year 2013 and subsequently on 01.09.2016, when he was erecting the compound, accused No.1 and his son-accused No.2 came along with police and stopped the construction of compound wall on the ground that the said property belongs to them and
they have purchased the said property from one Sridhar. After verifying the documents, the Police allowed the complainantrespondent No.2 to construct the compound wall and went back. Subsequently, the complainant said to be erected the compound and put up his board and locked the compound wall gate. On 5.9.2016, the petitioner No.1 and his father once again came and damaged the compound wall by breaking open the lock of the gate and put up his name on the compound wall. Thereafter, once again the complainant went and removed the board and put up his name. Thereafter, on 28.09.2016 petitioner No.1 and his father once again removed the board by breaking open the lock and damaged the compound wall. Hence, the complaint came to be filed. The police after the investigation filed the charge sheet which is under challenge.
NC: 2024:KHC:10098 CRL.P No. 1170 of 2022
as it is his property. This Court in the writ petition has stated the issuance of Khata shall be decided by the Civil Court in the suit. Therefore the criminal case cannot be continued and hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:10098 CRL.P No. 1170 of 2022
purchased the site only in the year 2014 without challenging the sale deed of the BDA after acquisition proceedings. The petitioner cannot claim the property and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:10098 CRL.P No. 1170 of 2022
quash the acquisition proceedings. Without quashing the acquisition proceedings, the property owners have no right to retain the land in their possession and even they lost the right for selling the property to the any persons. Once the land has been acquired by the BDA, the land will vest with the BDA and the Government. Such being the case, claiming the property by the owner-the Sridhar itself have no right to clear the property. That too after the execution of sale deed and allotment of land signed by the BDA to respondent No.2 in the year 2010 itself claiming the property of ownership by Sridhar or his successive purchaser does not arise and the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. Of course, the civil court can decide the matter and the khata said to be already canceled by the BBMP in the name of the petitioner i.e., looked into the civil case. However when the land was already lost by the owner, the question of selling the property by the Sridhar to the petitioner does not arise. Claiming the site or the owner ship from the Sridhar and entering to the premises is nothing but a trespass and damaging the board and damaging the compound wall itself is causing loss under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC and creation of document also looked into in the trial.
NC: 2024:KHC:10098 CRL.P No. 1170 of 2022
Therefore, there is prima facie material placed on record for framing of charge. The Court cannot go into the merits and conduct a mini trial under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the
petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
Whatever contention is available, the same shall be taken
as defence.
Sd/JUDGE
GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 468, 471, 420, 447, 427, 204 IPC against the petitioners should be quashed given their competing title claim through a vendor of pre-acquisition land.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Khalak
Sabiha Dastagir
State of Karnataka, Kadugondana Halli Police Station
K.N.P. Chandran
K.Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
