Poojanna Vs State of Karnataka by

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.126/2023 OF RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 474 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ACMM COURT, BENGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.126/2023 for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶31

learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31005 CRL.P No. 11116 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Respondent No.2/complainant has lodged a

¶35

detailed written complaint asserting that the property in question was originally owned by his

¶36

grandfather, Munikadiriga @ Munikadirappa , who was the original grantee of the land. It is alleged that the said original grantee had alienated the granted land without obtaining the mandatory prior permission from the competent authority. Subsequently, the father of the complainant being the son of the original grantee and other family members approached the competent authority seeking restoration of the granted land under the provisions governing such grants. The authority, after due consideration, vide order dated 18.07.2016, restored the land in favour of the complainant’s father.

¶37

It is further alleged that, following the demise of his grandfather, the complainant’s father, Narasimappa @ Narasimhaiah , obtained the requisite sale permission from the Government vide order dated 19.11.2021. Thereafter, upon the demise of his father, and in view of the fact that

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31005 CRL.P No. 11116 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

permission for alienation had already been obtained, Respondent No.2 executed a registered sale deed dated 23.12.2020-21 in favour of one Ramaiah S/o Pilla Anjinappa .

¶41

The gist of the complaint is that the present petitioners, by falsely representing themselves as the grandchildren of the original grantee Munikadiriga @ Munikadirappa and by fabricating a spurious family tree, challenged the Government’s permission before the Assistant Commissioner with the ulterior object of claiming rights over the property.

¶42

The Assistant Commissioner, upon adjudication, passed an order restoring the land in favour of the petitioners’ family on the premise that the petitioners were the lawful legal heirs of the original grantee, while holding that Respondent No.2 was not related to the said family. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No.2 lodged a criminal complaint contending that the petitioners have no

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31005 CRL.P No. 11116 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

nexus whatsoever with his family and have fraudulently concocted the family tree to lay claim over the land. He further stated that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who, after considering the matter on merits, dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the findings against Respondent No.2.

¶46

Upon careful scrutiny of the allegations set out in the written complaint which culminated in the registration of Crime No.126/2023 ,this Court is of the considered view that the matter warrants a thorough investigation. Specifically, it is essential for the Investigating Officer to ascertain the true legal heirs of the original grantee by examining documentary evidence and conducting a factbased inquiry. In this context, the Investigating Officer shall be entitled to collect relevant public records, such as electoral identity cards, revenue records, and any other documentary evidence pertaining to both the petitioners’ family and the family of Respondent No.2, so as to

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31005 CRL.P No. 11116 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

conclusively determine the lineage and rightful heirs. Pending such investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant relief to the petitioners.

¶50

It is, however, clarified that if, after due investigation and collection of records, the Investigating Officer forms the opinion that the evidence gathered does not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and that the matter is essentially of a civil nature, it would be open to him to refer the parties to seek their remedies before the competent civil court. In such an eventuality, the role of the Investigating Officer would be confined to placing on record that the dispute partakes the character of a civil dispute rather than a criminal offence.

¶51