Sri Shivarajegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

W/O SRI. SHIVARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS RESIDING AT R/O CHANNAPILLEKOPPALU VILLAGE, KIRUGAVLU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA - 571 424.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KIRUGAVALU P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE MARIGOWDA H.V, AGED 77 YEARS,

¶18

NANJEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9708 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2022

¶21

KIRUGAVLU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA - 571 424.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.23/2022 P/U/S 504, 341, 323, 324, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.23/2022 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC Malavalli, Mandya District, is sought to be quashed in this petition.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶29

Based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Smt. Girijamma, Crime No.92/2021 of Kirugavalu Police Station, Mandya, was registered against the

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:9708 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2022

¶32

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 504, 341, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶33

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that, on 03.09.2021 at about 3.45 p.m., the accused trespassed into the property bearing Sy No.136/1-P3 measuring 1 acre, 4 guntas and illegally cut and removed about 200 nilgiri trees and when the complainant tried to intervene, both the accused abused her and tied with a rope, assaulted and threatened her with dire consequences etc.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioners are the absolute owners of the property in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 04.08.2007 and they have filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction, in O.S.No.74/2020 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli. He contended that petitioners being the absolute owners of the property, question of trespassing into the property does not arise. He contended

¶35

that the entire allegations are false and even the petitioners have lodged a complaint, which was registered in Crime

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:9708 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2022

¶38

No.93/2021 at Kirugavalu Police Station, Mandya against the complainant/respondent No.2 and her son, but the police have filed a B-report in the said case and filed charge sheet against the petitioners. He contended that, the dispute is purely civil in nature, which has been given a colour of criminal offence and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that in the civil suit filed by the petitioners, no interim protection was granted to them and during the pendency of the civil suit, without taking any permission from the Court, the petitioners have illegally cut and removed 200 nilgiri trees.

¶40

The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners since there are eyewitnesses to the incident and the complainant herself being the victim, the police have filed charge sheet after conducting a thorough investigation.

¶41

I have perused the material on record. According to the complainant, property bearing Sy.No.136/1-P3 measuring

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:9708 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2022

¶44

1.04 acres belongs to her. Petitioners i.e., the accused are the owners of property bearing Sy No.136/1P-2 measuring 1.05 acres. The accused used to quarrel, stating that they are entitled for 6 guntas in the land owned by the complainant and in this regard, on 03.09.2021 at about 3.45 p.m., they trespassed into her property and cut and removed 200 nilgiri trees and when it was objected, they tied her with a rope, assaulted her and her grandson by name Shivadeepu etc.

¶45

It is not in dispute that, there is a suit filed by the petitioners, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli in O.S.No.74/2020. The said suit was filed seeking declaration and permanent injunction, on 02.03.2020. Admittedly, there is no interim order passed infavour of the petitioners. Complaint is filed not only for trespassing into the property and cutting the nilgiri trees, but also for abusing the complainant, assaulting her and her grandson. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:9708 CRL.P No. 11782 of 2022

¶48

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that in the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1, police have filed B-report and the said petitioner has filed protest petition before the trial Court.

¶49

It is needless to say that, if the protest petition is entertained by the trial Court, then procedure contemplated under law to try a case and counter case, has to be followed.

¶50