Shri Channabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT/FIR AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.983/2021 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. KOPPAL ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.44/2021 REGISTERED BEFORE KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 504, 324, 323, 506 AND 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10222 CRL.P No. 102058 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶33

Accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.983/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, arising out of Crime No.44/2021 registered by Koppal Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties and it is only on this background, a false criminal case has been registered against the petitioners. Petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute and therefore the allegation of trespassing is totally baseless. He submits that the impugned criminal proceedings has been causing serious hardship and embarrassment to the petitioners and accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra , learned HCGP opposed the petition.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10222 CRL.P No. 102058 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the first informant Basavaraj has alleged that on 08.03.2021 at about 12.30 p.m. while he and his mother Gangamma were harvesting the crop in their land bearing Survey No.70/A, the accused persons trespassed into the said land and after abusing them using filthy language assaulted the first informant causing injuries. They also allegedly assaulted his mother with their hands and thereafter, left the spot of crime after criminally intimidating them. During the course of investigation, the statements of the injured witnesses has been recorded. Material on record would go to show that the FIR was registered in the present case based on the statement of the injured victim which was recorded in the hospital after a Medico legal case intimation was received by the police from the concerned hospital in which injured victim was taking treatment. Along with the charge sheet, the medical records of the injured victim is also produced. The aforesaid documents prima facie show that the first

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10222 CRL.P No. 102058 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

informant and his mother had suffered simple injuries in the incident in question that had taken place on 08.03.2021. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no material to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences. Merely, for the reason that there is some civil dispute between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings if the material on record would make out a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged offences.

¶44

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMALADEVI AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF W.B AND OTHERS¹ , in para 17 held as follows:

¶45

“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority,

¶46

1 (2002) 1 SCC 555

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10222 CRL.P No. 102058 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”

¶50

7 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kathyayini vs Sri Sidharth P.S. Reddy² , While relying upon the case of KAMALADEVI(supra) in paragraph No.23 has held as follows:

¶51

“23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons …”

¶52

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the

¶53

petition is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

Vmb/CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 74

¶56

2 2025 INSC 818

Shri Channabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Channabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. N. G. Manohar S/O Sumangalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Balappa Basavant Gudagenatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O. Subhash Munavalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Rev. David Nathaniel S/O Late B. Nathaniel Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Reverond Rev. Solomon S/O. Sedappa Hulamani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Koteppa S/O Mallappa Vs the State of Karnataka