Allowed¶69

Sri Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025CRL.P/12451/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC quash petition CRL.P 12451/2023 M.I. Arun J. Section 482 CrPC FIR Crime No.238/2023 Rajanakunte police Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 burial ground encroachment Shiresandra Village Survey No.64/1 JCB levelling Section 297 IPC trespass burial places Section 3(1)(t) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 sacred object defilement O.S.No.740/2008 decree no revenue proceedings abuse of process civil dispute criminal colour FIR quashed interim order 20.12.2023 corrected 21.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru quashed in so far as they relate to the petitioner. ¶69

Sri Prakash Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint dated 23.09.2023, the FIR in Crime No.238/2023 registered by Rajanakunte Police Station, and the ensuing police report/proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 against the petitioner for offences under Section 297 IPC and Section 3(1)(t) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of the process of law, the dispute being essentially civil in nature.

¶60

Court's answer

The petitioner cultivated his land and used a JCB on his land or believing the land to be his; if at all there is any encroachment of Government land as alleged, the State is always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and have the petitioner evicted; it is essentially a civil dispute that has been given a criminal colour.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is essentially a civil dispute given a criminal colour, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District stand quashed in so far as they relate to the petitioner.

¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of complaint dated 23.09.2023, FIR in Crime No.238/2023 of Rajanakunte Police Station and consequential proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 — Allegation that petitioner encroached upon a portion of the burial ground reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities in Shiresandra Village and used a JCB to level it — Police report for offences under Section 297 IPC and Section 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Petitioner claimed ownership and cultivation of Survey No.64/1, Shiresandra Village, and a decree in O.S.No.740/2008 restraining State interference; respondent No.2 absent despite service — Learned HCGP admitted no Revenue Officers' proceedings had been initiated for eviction — Held: if at all there is encroachment of Government land, the State is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and have the petitioner evicted; it is essentially a civil dispute given a criminal colour — Petition allowed; Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 quashed qua petitioner (judgment corrected vide Court Order dated 21.04.2026).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12451 OF 2023

¶7

(482 (Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI PRAKASH

¶10

S/O IYANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.27, SHIRESANDRA BYATHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 089.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJANKUNTE POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

SRI S V GOVINDARAJU S/O T VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SHIRESANDRA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BYATHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 089.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP., FOR R.1; R.2: SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.09.2023 AND THE FIR IN CR.NO.238/2023 (ANNEXURES-A AND B) REGISTERED ON 23.09.2023 BY RESPONDENT NO.1., i.e., RAJANAKUNTE POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 3(1)(t) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

On the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of the burial ground reserved for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes communities in Shiresandra Village, a complaint is registered by the second respondent before the first respondent-police. Initially, an FIR in Crime No.238 of 2023 came to be registered and thereafter, a police report has been filed charging the petitioner herein for the offences under Section 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶31

The petitioner being unaware of the police report having already been filed, has challenged the registration of the FIR in the instant criminal petition. On 20.12.2023, this Court has passed the following interim Order:-

¶32

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he used JCB to level the burial ground and abused respondent No.2. He further submits that FIR was

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

lodged to circumvent the decree granted in O.S.No.740/2008 permanently restraining the State Government from interfering the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject property.

¶37

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶38

Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2.

¶39

Interim order, as prayed for, insofar it relates to petitioner herein, till the next date of hearing.

¶40

I.A.No.1/2023 is accordingly allowed."

¶41

When the matter was taken up today for hearing,

¶42

the learned HCGP produced a copy of the police report. Upon verification, the petitioner submits that even the contents of the police report are also liable to be set aside.

¶43

Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:-

¶44

"297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.

¶45

Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sculpture, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a depository

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons, assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies,

¶50

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

¶51

Section 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the

¶52

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reads as under:-

¶53

" 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. — (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

¶54

(t) destroys, damages or defiles any object generally known to be held sacred or in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes."

¶55

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of

¶56

certain lands in Survey No. 64/1 of Shiresandra Village and he has been cultivating the said land. The second respondent, with the sole intention of harassing and extorting money from the petitioner, has lodged a false complaint and the State without application of mind has filed a police report.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

It is further submitted that if it was really a burial ground, appropriate proceedings would have been initiated by the Revenue Officers, which has not been done. It is submitted that the present case is filed only to harass the petitioner and not otherwise, and it is an abuse of the process of law. On the said ground, it is prayed that the FIR as well as the police report be quashed.

¶61

The second respondent has remained absent in spite of service of notice.

¶62

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, upon instructions, prays for dismissal of the petition. He submits it is a matter for

¶63

trial whether the petitioner has, in fact, encroached upon the burial ground or not. However, he candidly admits that no proceedings have been initiated so far by the Revenue Officers to evict the petitioner from the alleged encroachment on the burial ground.

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45068 CRL.P No. 12451 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

The records reveal that the petitioner has cultivated his land and has used a JCB on his land or believing the

¶67

land to be belonging to him, if at all there is any encroachment of Government land as alleged, the State is

¶68

always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and have the petitioner evicted. It is essentially a civil dispute that has been given a criminal colour.

¶69

For the aforementioned reasons. The petition is allowed . The proceedings in *Spl.C.C.No.1326/2023 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stands quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned.

¶70

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶71

VMB

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

¶73

*Corrected vide Court Order dated 21.04.2026.

Sri Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakash 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash M Vs Smt Munirathnamma

Sri Yellappa Vs State by Hennur Police Station

Chikkaboraiah Vs Honnamma

Smt Thopamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Susheelamma Vs Smt Devamma

Sri. Shakeel Ahamad Vs the State of Karnataka