Seenappa Vs State of Karnataka

KUMAR NISHANTH NAYAK H.N S/O NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS R/A HALEURU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 122. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER NARAYANASWAMY

¶23

KUMAR SAMRTHA NAYAK H AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS R/A HALEVOORU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 122. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER NARAYANASWAMY

¶24

KUMARI SAI. INCHARA A AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS R/A HALEURU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 122. REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ASHWATHAPPA

¶25

SUJATHA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A DODDAGANJUR, CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR KARNATAKA - 563 125.

¶26

SUREKHA H.G D/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

R/A HALEURU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 122.

¶30

10. MANOHAR H.G

¶31

S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A HALEURU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 122.

¶32

11. GANGAMMA

¶33

W/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A HALEURU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA.

¶34

12. LAGHUMAMMA

¶35

W/O AJINAPPA

¶36

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A HALEURU VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA.

¶37

CHENNAMMA

¶38

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A SAVAKANAHALLI, BIDALUR BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA - 562 110.

¶39

14. MANJULA S

¶40

W/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶41

R/A CHIKKABALLPURA TALLUKU

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

DIBBUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR KARNNATAKA - 562 101.

¶45

NARASARAJU BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A NO. SHREE ANANDA NILAYAM KASHI MUTT ROAD, 19H CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU NORTH KARNATAKA - 560 055

¶46

SUDARSHAN J

¶47

S/O JAYARAMA R/A 197/1, SAROJAMMA GARDEN DODDAKAMMANAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA - 560 083.

¶48

…PETITIONERS

¶49

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAO S.S, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HOSAKOTA SUB DIVISION BENGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 562 122.

¶52

SRI. SHIVSHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LAKSHMAMMA R/A NANDAGUDI VILLAGE, HOBALI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

HC-KAR

KARNATAKA - 562 122.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FO R1; SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶58

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE FIR DATED 28.09.2024 REGISTERED AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR. 178/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 190, 318(4), 335, 336(3), 351(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND CJM, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶59

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

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶61

ORAL ORDER

¶62

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing

¶63

of the proceedings pending in Crime No.178/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 190, 318(4), 335, 336(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶64

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶67

Respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint alleging

¶68

that petitioner No.16 purchased an extent of 4 acres 1¾ guntas under a registered sale deed dated 19.09.2024 from petitioners No.1 to 15, by including within it the complainant’s property measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.201. Acting upon this complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a crime, alleging that the petitioners had committed the offences of cheating and forgery by incorporating, in the said sale deed, the land that had been purchased by the complainant’s mother in 1972 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that respondent No.2 has already instituted a comprehensive civil suit seeking declaration and injunction in O.S.No.740/2024.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the

¶70

grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that respondent No.2 has attempted to convert a dispute,

¶71

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

which is essentially civil in nature, into a criminal prosecution, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are not maintainable. He further submitted that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist on the same set of facts, a proposition which has been substantially dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 8 SCC 680.

¶74

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant’s mother had purchased an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1974, and therefore, petitioners No.1 to 15 had no saleable interest in that portion of the land. It was contended that the petitioners, in collusion with petitioner No.16, fabricated and executed the sale deed with an intention to cheat and thereby usurp the property belonging to respondent No.2.

¶75

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader

¶76

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also carefully perused the records.

¶79

On a perusal of the records, this Court finds that respondent No.2 has instituted a comprehensive civil suit in O.S.No.740/2024. It is considered appropriate to extract the reliefs sought in the said suit for ready reference. The prayers in the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶80

"a) Declare that, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner being in physical possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property, measuring an extent of 1 Acre 20 Guntas, situated at Nandagudi Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed dated: 19.01.1974, registered as Document No.651/1972-73, Volume No. 1329, in Pages 60-61, Book-l, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote, in the name of the Plaintiff.

¶81

b) Declare that, the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 in favour of the Defendant No.17 vide Registered Sale Deed dated: 04.09.2024, registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote, vide Book-I, Document No. HSK-1-10925-2024-25, dated: 19.09.2024, in so far as Schedule 'A' property of the Plaintiff, measuring an extent of 1 Acres 20 Guntas, is not binding upon the Plaintiff's 'A' Schedule property.

¶82

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

c) Direct the Defendants not to interfere, dispossess, cause obstruction, alienate, encumber, create charge in the 'A' schedule property of the Plaintiff, measuring an extent of 1 Acres 20 Guntas, till the disposal of the case and grant such other orders in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶85

The order passed by the Trial Court vacating the interim injunction is of relevance to the present proceedings. Hence, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order rendered on I.A. Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.740/2024. The said portions

¶86

are extracted hereunder:

¶87

11. On perusal of all the above records, the defendant No. 17 has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As per RTC extracts and the orders of re-garnt passed by the Assistant Commissioner clearly goes to show that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.201, an extent of 13 acres was granted in favour of Thimmaiah S/o Talavara Giriyappa under VOA(H)146/1970-71. By virtue of the same, mutation was also effected and his name was continued in the RTC extracts.

¶88

12. Further, as per orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner they have stated that with regard to the possession and title over the suit schedule property the plaintiff has to approach proper court for remedy. Here in this case, the plaintiff except the copy of sale deed dated 19-1-1972 has not produced any material documents to show that the vendor of the plaintiff by

¶89

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

name Chikka Thimmarayappa had a valid title over the suit schedule property and also re-grant made in favour of Thimmaiah S/o Talavara Giriyappa was set aside by the competent authority.

¶92

On a closer examination of the reliefs sought by respondent No.2/complainant, as well as the observations recorded by the Trial Court while vacating the order of interim injunction, two material aspects become evident. In the first place, respondent No.2/complainant claims title to the property through one Chikka Thimmarayappa, whereas the present petitioners trace their title through Thimmaiah, son of late Talavara Giriyappa. The learned Trial Judge, while vacating the interim order, has specifically noted that Thimmaiah was the owner of land measuring about 13 acres in Sy.No.201. Petitioners No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs of the said Thimmaiah and, by virtue of succession, claim ownership over the said extent. It is further borne out from the record that these petitioners, under a registered sale deed dated 19.09.2024, sold an extent of 4 acres 1¾ guntas in

¶93

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

the same survey number to M/s. RPW Warehousing Private Limited (arrayed as defendant No.17 in the civil suit).

¶96

Upon considering these significant details, this Court is of the opinion that there are two competing chains of title emerging from distinct sale deeds. Respondent No.2 is tracing his right through the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1974, said to have been executed in favour of his mother, covering an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.201. Consequently, the burden lies upon respondent No.2 to independently establish, in the civil forum, the validity of his mother’s purchase and the extent of her holding. Simultaneously, the rights claimed by petitioners No.1 to 15 over 13 acres in Sy.No.201, and the conveyance of a portion thereof to petitioner No.16 under the sale deed dated 19.09.2024, also call for adjudication. Whether the transaction in favour of petitioner No.16 involved only the property held by Thimmaiah and his heirs, or whether it encroached upon the land purchased by the complainant’s mother, is a matter that can only be

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

determined after a full-fledged trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. These are essentially disputed questions of title and boundaries, which lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court. The Investigating Officer, acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not vested with authority to embark upon such an enquiry or to adjudicate rival claims to immovable property.

¶101

In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded to hold that the jurisdictional police ought to have relegated respondent No.2 to pursue his remedies before the appropriate civil forum rather than registering a criminal case. The record further discloses that the complaint was lodged on 27.09.2024, and on the very next day respondent No.2 instituted a comprehensive civil suit in O.S.No.740/2024, seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs. The sale deed obtained by petitioner No.16 will, therefore, necessarily remain subject to the proof of title of respondent No.2 in the said pending suit.

¶102

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

Without expressing any opinion on the comparative merits of the titles set up by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the registration of the FIR and continuation of criminal proceedings were wholly unwarranted. Entertaining a dispute of this nature under the guise of offences of cheating or forgery amounts to an abuse of the criminal process.

¶105

To prevent such abuse and to obviate the needless ordeal of a criminal trial—which, in the facts and circumstances, would serve no fruitful purpose—this Court finds it appropriate to invoke the inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the controversy is essentially civil in nature and requires exhaustive adjudication before the civil court, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an unwarranted interference in a purely civil dispute. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶106

14 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:34984 CRL.P No. 1057 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶110

ORDER

¶111

i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed .

¶112

ii. The proceedings in Crime No.178/2024,

¶113

registered by the Nandagudi Police Station and now pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 318(4), 335, 336(3), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in so far as they pertain to the present petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 16, are hereby quashed.

¶114

iii. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.

¶115

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶116

HDK/CT: BHK

Seenappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seenappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Anith Prem Victor Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Irfan @ Irfan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Vijayraj Vs the State of Karnataka by

Numan Zahoor Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rama Krishna Raru @ Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrachari Vs the State of Karnataka