Allowed¶96

S. Muhammed Sagar v. Ibrahim

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2025CRL.P/1805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings S.482 Cr.P.C. S.528 BNSS inherent powers abuse of process civil dispute given criminal colour boundary demarcation identification overlapping sale certificate Sagar Municipality Commissioner cheating S.420 IPC S.468 S.469 S.471 S.423 S.426 S.149 IPC private complaint S.156(3) Cr.P.C. referral 'B' Report cognizance Priyanka Srivastava affidavit O.S.No.1/2016 O.S.No.230/2013 bare suit injunction dismissed trial stage no bar vexatious complaint Principal Civil Judge JMFC Sagara Shimoga Karnataka High Court Sachin Shankar Magadum CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.155/2019 (arising out of PCR No.163/2023) on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagara, Shimoga District, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. ¶96

S. Muhammed Sagar Vs Ibrahim — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.155/2019 (arising out of PCR No.163/2023) on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagara, Shimoga District, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶96

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.155/2019, founded on the allegation that a municipal sale certificate overlaps the complainant's land, amount to abuse of process where the dispute is essentially one of boundary identification and demarcation belonging to civil adjudication. +1 more

¶77

Court's answer

Even on the complainant's own showing, the plaint schedule in O.S.No.1/2016 acknowledges that the land held by petitioner No.1 lies immediately to the north of the complainant's property.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

The sale deed executed in favour of the complainant itself acknowledges the existence of the property belonging to the petitioners.

¶72

Key takeaways

Once the complainant alleges that the sale certificate overlaps his land, the issue becomes one of boundary identification and ownership, essentially determinable by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶77
In such circumstances, the offences alleged in the private complaint cannot be made the subject matter of a criminal trial.ratio¶77
The competence or authority of a municipal officer in issuing a sale certificate cannot be examined in the context of criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (filed under Section 528 BNSS) allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.155/2019 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagara, quashed insofar as the petitioners. The complaint alleged offences under sections 468, 420, 469, 471, 423, 426 and 149 IPC on the basis that a sale certificate issued by the then Commissioner of Sagar Municipality overlapped land purchased by the complainant under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2002. Holding that even the complainant's own plaint schedule in O.S.No.1/2016 (earlier O.S.No.230/2013) acknowledged petitioner No.1's land as lying to the north of his property, and that his sale deed recognised the petitioners' property, the Court found the core dispute to be boundary identification and demarcation, a matter for a civil court; the competence of a municipal officer to issue a sale certificate cannot be tested within a cheating prosecution, and the officer's superannuation in 2012 against a 2013 complaint weakened the substratum. Pendency since 2013 and recording of the complainant's examination-in-chief were held no bar to exercise of inherent powers where continuance would abuse process; the complaint was deemed unwarranted and vexatious, a civil dispute given a criminal colour.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. MUHAMMED SAGAR

¶9

S/O LATE S HYDROSE AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS OWNER OF RAJESH BEEDI R/AT GULAM MOHIDDIN ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR TALUK - 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

S. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RETIRED MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER R/AT HOLEHONNUR ROAD, OPPOSITE TO GUDEKALL TEMPLE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. PRESENTLY R/AT GIRIDARSHINI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, SIDDESHWARA NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

IBRAHIM

¶16

S/O LATE KODI MUHAMMED AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

OWNER OF CAPTAIN BEEDI R/AT TIP TOP MANSION JANNATH NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, SAGAR TOWN - 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE P.C.R NO.163/2023 (C.C.NO.155/2019) FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SAGAR.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed by the retired

¶27

commissioner of the municipality and the grantee seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.155/2019 for the

¶28

offence punishable under sections 468, 420, 469, 471, 423, 426 and read with section 149 of the IPC.

¶29

The respondent has filed a private complaint

¶30

against the petitioners and others in PCR No.163/2013 alleging commission of the aforesaid offences. The sum

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

and substance of the complaint is that the complainant purchased land in Sy.No.63, measuring 1 acre, situated at Aralikoppa village, under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2002. It is his case that he subsequently secured conversion of the said land from agricultural to residential use and obtained sanction for a single-unit construction, which was duly recorded by the Commissioner on 26.02.2003.

¶34

The complainant further alleges that respondent

¶35

No.2, who was then the Commissioner of Sagar Municipality, fraudulently issued a sale certificate in favour of petitioner No.1 with an intention to defraud him and deprive him of his lawful property. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 6, acting in collusion with petitioner No.1, procured the said sale certificate with common intention. According to the complainant, the land covered under the impugned sale certificate overlaps with and falls within the land already purchased and owned by him.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The petitioners, who are before this Court, seek quashing of the proceedings on multiple grounds. Firstly, it is urged that the referral of the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the consequent issuance of summons and taking of cognizance, are wholly illegal and contrary to the material on record. Secondly, the petitioners contend that a bare reading of the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of any offence, and therefore continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The petitioners further submit that the Magistrate has taken cognizance without due consideration of the ‘B’ Report submitted by the Investigating Officer. They also argue that the dispute essentially pertains to the identity of the property, which is a matter of civil adjudication, and cannot give rise to criminal liability. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava

¶39

and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2015) 6

¶40

SCC 287], to contend that since the private complaint

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

was filed without the mandatory supporting affidavit as required under the said judgment, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶44

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant has supported the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance. It is submitted that respondent No.2, being the Commissioner of Sagar Municipality, had fraudulently issued the sale certificate in favour of petitioner No.1 despite the complainant’s subsisting ownership, thereby attracting the offence of cheating. It is further contended that the allegations raised in the petition cannot be considered at this stage, as the trial has already commenced and the complainant has entered the witness box and tendered his examination-inchief. On this premise, the learned Senior Counsel seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶45

This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-complainant. Careful consideration has been given to the averments in the complaint, the sale certificate issued in favour of petitioner No.1, the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant, as well as the dismissal of the bare suit for injunction filed by the complainant.

¶49

Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court finds it necessary to reproduce paragraph No.9 of the complaint, which reads thus:

¶50

"9. ��ಾದು�ಾರರ�ಾ��ೕ�ಾನುಭದ��ರುವ 1 ಎಕ�ೆ ಭೂಪ�ವ��ತಕಟ�ಡ ಸ�ತ ಾದ! ೇಶನಕೂ# ಮತು% 2 �ಂದ 6 ರವ�ೆ'ನಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ+ ತಮ, -ೆಸ�.ೆ 1 �ೇಆ�ೋ�ಯಅಕ1ಮಷ�ೕ3�ೊಂ4.ೆ ಬ�ೆ67ೊಂ8ರುವ! ೇಶನ�ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ<ಗಳ��ಕಂ8ರುವ=ಾಗಕೂ# >ಾವ?�ೇಸಂಬಂಧಇಲ� ಾ'ದCರೂಸ-ಾ 2 �ಂದ 6 ರವ�ೆ'ನಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ+ ಸDಾನಉ�ೆCೕಶ4ಂದ 1 �ೇಆ�ೋ�Fಂ4.ೆ GಾHೕIಾ' ! ೇಶನಗಳ�ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ< ಬ�ೆ67ೊಂ8ದುC ಸದ��ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ<ಗಳ�� !ೕಡIಾದ =ಾಗದ JವರKೆಯು _,_ ಅ ೆIಾ� �ೊತು%ಗಳ+ �>ಾ�ದು�ಾರರ ಹಕು#�ಾ� �ಾ��ೕ�ಾನುಭವದ 01 ಎಕ�ೆ ! ೇಶನದ ಾM�%ಯ��Nೕಇರುವ?�ಾ'Oೋ�ಸIಾ'�ೆ . 1 �ೇಆ�ೋ�ಯುತಮ, ಸ�ಮತು% ನಗರಸPೆ , �ಾಗರಇವರಮು�ೆ1Fಂ4.ೆ!ೕಡIಾದಸದ��ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ<ಗಳ+ ��ಾದು�ಾರರ _01_ ಎಕ�ೆ! ೇಶನದಅ6%ತ�ವನುQ ಧRಂಸ.ೊSಸುವಸ�ರೂಪ�ಾC'ದುC _,_ ಈಅಕ1ಮವMವಹರKೆಯ��>ಾ�ದು�ಾರರ>ಾವತಷೂ�ಇಲ � ೆ �ೇರಅಥ ಾ ಪ�ೋV Pಾ'�ಾ�7ೆಇಲ�4ದCರೂಆ�ೋ�ಗಳಇಂತಹWೕಸದಕೃತM4ಂ�ಾ' �>ಾ�ದು�ಾರರು-ೇರಳಆY�ಕನಷZ ಮತು% ಆ7ಾರಣDಾನ6ಕ , \ಾ�ೕ�ಕ ೇದ�ೆಅನುಭJಸುವಪ�6]�ಯತIೆ�ೋ�ರುOೆ% . 1 �ೇಆ�ೋ�ಯು 2 �ಂದ 6 �ೇ

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ-ೆಸ�ನ��ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ< �ೋಂದ^6 7ೊಡುವಸಂದಭ�ದ�� ಮತು% 2 �ಂದ 6 �ೇಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ+ -ಾ.ೆತಮ, ತಮ, -ೆಸ�.ೆ�ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ< ಪ_ೆಯು ಾಗOಾ ೆಲ�ರೂ�ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ< ಮೂಲಕಪ_ೆದು7ೊಳ+�%ರುವ=ಾಗವ? ಸ]ಳದ��ಅ6%ತ�ದ��ಲ�ಎಂಬುದುಖbತ ಾ' �Sದವ�ಾ'ದCರುಮತು% ಇಂತಹ ಕುcೋದM _(Mischief)_ ದ ಕೃತM4ಂದ �>ಾ�ದು�ಾರರ ಹಕು#�ಾ� �ಾ��ೕ�ಾನುಭವದ��ರುವ _01_ ಎಕ�ೆ! ೇಶನವನುQ ಅ�ಕ1ಮಪ1 ೇdಸುವ?ದ7ೆ# ಸದ� �ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ<ಗಳ+ ರಹ ಒದ'ಸುವ?ದ�ಂದ �>ಾ�ದು�ಾರ�.ೆ Wೕಸಪ8ಸಲು�ಾಧM ಾಗುವ?ದರ=ೊOೆ.ೆಅಂತಹನಕಲು�ಾಖIೆಗಳ�ೆರJ!ಂದ ಸ7ಾ�ರದ JJಧ ಇIಾfೆಗಳ�� .ೊಂದಲ ಸೃg�6 Oೊಂದ�ೆ ಉಂಟು Dಾಡುವ?ದ�ೊಂ4.ೆಹಣ7ಾಸುಸಂ�ೆ]ಗಳ��ಅಂತಹ�ಾಖIೆಗಳನುQ ಬಳ67ೊಂಡು ವMವ-ಾರ ನ_ೆ6 ��ಾದು�ಾರರ ವಚ�ಸiನುQ ಕು'jಸಬಹು�ೆಂಬ ಬ.ೆjಯೂ ಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ+ ಅ�ವ? -ೊಂ4ದCರು _._ ಾಸ%ವ ಾ' �>ಾ�ದು�ಾರ�.ೆಖbತ ಾ' �Sದು ಬಂ4ರುವಂOೆ �ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1 ಬ�ೆದು7ೊ:�ರುOಾ%�ೆ ಎಂದು -ೇಳIಾದ>ಾವ?�ೇವM3%ಗಳk _2_ �ಂದ _6_ ರವ�ೆ'ನಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ-ೆಸ�.ೆಅಂತಹ �ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1 ಖ�ೆದು7ೊ:�ರುವ?4ಲ� _._ ಬ�ೆದು7ೊ:��ಾC�ೆ ಎಂದು -ೇಳIಾದ7ಾಲ7ೆ# ಅವರುಗlಾರೂmೕವಂತಇ4Cರುವ�ಾಧMOೆಗlೇಇಲ� ಾ'ದುC , Fೕಜ�ೆಯನುQ ಆ6%>ಾ'ಪ�ವ��6ದುIಾ�ಭಪ_ೆದು7ೊಳ+`ವದುರು�ೆCೕಶ4ಂದ ಸೃg�67ೊಂ8ರುವ-ೆಸರುಗlಾ' ೆ . ಇದರಸogZಕರಣ7ಾ#' -ಾ.ೆ�ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1 ಬ�ೆದು7ೊಟ�ವರJlಾಸ , ಆ6% JವರKೆ ಮತು% ಇ!Qತ�ೆ Jವರಗಳ+ ಸಂಬಂ�ತ�ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ<ಗಳ��Oೋ�ಸIಾದJವರಗS.ೆಪ1OೆMೕಕ ಾ' ಮತು% ಪರಸoರOಾlೆ>ಾ'ರುವ?4ಲ� . ಮತು% ಒಬp�ೇವM3%ಯು�ಡುವSಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1ದ ಅನ�ಯಒಂದುಬಗqಹುಕುಂ�ಾ��ೕನOೆಯ=ಾಗವನುQ �ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1 ಬ�ೆದು7ೊಡಲು !ಯಮದ�� ಅವ7ಾಶ ಕ�oಸIಾ'ದುC , ಸದ� rೕIಾ#^6ದ ಪ1ಕರಣದ�� ಒಬp�ೇ ವM3%ಯು 2 3#ಂತ -ೆಚುs �ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1 ಬ�ೆದು7ೊ:�ದುC ಕಂಡುಬರುತ%�ೆ-ಾಗೂ�ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1ವನುQ ಅಬುC9 ರ=ಾt ಎಂಬುವವರುಬ�ೆದು7ೊ:��ಾC�ೆ ಎಂತ�ಾಖIೆಯ��ಕಂಡುಬಂ4ದC�ೆ ಸಂಬಂ�ತ�ೇ9ಸ:�;7ೇ<ನ��ಅನ�q uಾGಾಇವರು�ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1 ಬ�ೆದು7ೊ:��ಾC�ೆಎಂದುನಮೂ4ಸIಾ'�ೆಮತು% ಎಲ�ಕೂ# H'Iಾ' �ಡುವS ಹಕು# ಕ1ಯಪತ1ದ��ಕಂ8ರುವ�ೊ�%ನ ಾv�ನಂಬq , ಅಳOೆಕ1ಯ7ೆ# 7ೊ:�ರುವವರ Jlಾಸ ಮತು% ಇ!Qತ�ೆ Jವರಗಳ+ ಸಂಬಂ�ತ �ೇ9 ಸ:�;7ೇ<ಗಳ�� -ೊಂ47ೆ>ಾಗು�%ಲ� ."

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

On a close scrutiny of paragraph No.9 of the complaint, this Court finds that the dispute essentially pertains to the boundary property. The complainant himself has acknowledged that the land owned by petitioner No.1 is situated to the north of his property. This factual position is evident from the schedule of the plaint filed in O.S.No.1/2016 (earlier numbered as O.S.No.230/2013). For clarity, this Court considers it appropriate to extract the schedule herein below:

¶58

"A site measuring East-West 135+133/2 and South-North 345+315/2 feet which is situated in ward no.23/6 of Sagar Nagar sabha limit, Khata and assessment no. 463416-416-416/1-416/2 Jannath nagar, Sagar wherein 15,840 sq.feet building is situated and the total site is bounded by East and West: Road, North: property that belongs to S.Mohemmed and South: property that belongs to Parameswar."

¶59

The schedule relied upon by the complainant in the civil suit clearly discloses that the property situated to

¶60

the north of the complainant’s land is owned by one S. Muhammed Sagar, who is none other than petitioner No.1 herein, arrayed as accused No.2 in the present

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

proceedings. Thus, even on the complainant’s own showing, the land held by petitioner No.1 is acknowledged as lying immediately to the north of his property.

¶64

Further, it is specifically indicated that the property granted in favour of petitioner No.1, which lies to the south of the northern boundary, abuts the very land claimed by the complainant. This spatial description, as reflected in the plaint schedule, fortifies the contention that the core issue raised is one of proper demarcation and identification of boundaries between the two properties, rather than any fraudulent or criminal conduct attributable to the petitioners.

¶65

In order to appreciate the nature of this dispute,

¶66

this Court also considers it appropriate to extract the schedule contained in the grant certificate issued in favour of petitioner No.1. The same reads thus:

¶67

�ೆಡೂ��

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

�ಾಗರ mË� 25 �ೇ �ಾ�� ಜನ�� ನಗರದ�� ಬರುವ �ಾಗರ ನಗರಸ�ೆಯ�ಾ°Û �ಾ�ನಆ ! "ೆ#$ೆ#%ಸ&ರು'ಾ"ೆನಂಬ) 2757/1 / PÀAqÀ 73X140 ಅ+ ,�ೇಶನ . ಈ,�ೇಶನ/ೆ0 ಚತುಗ�+ಗಳ4 : ಪ6ವ�/ೆ0: ರ�ೆ! . ಪ9:ಮ/ೆ0: ರ�ೆ! . GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ: 'ಾ�,�ೇಶನ . ದ<ಣ/ೆ0: ಇ?ಾ)@ಂgÀವರ�ೊA!ನಗ+ .

¶71

If the aforesaid factual matrix is taken into

¶72

account, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent/complainant, while his bare suit for injunction was still pending adjudication, has simultaneously attempted to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners. A perusal of the extracted schedules and recitals clearly reveals that, at the highest, the controversy between the complainant and petitioner No.1 pertains to the identification and demarcation of boundaries of their respective properties. Significantly, the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant itself acknowledges the existence of the property belonging to the petitioners. Even in the plaint and schedule filed in the earlier civil suit, which have been extracted supra, the

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

complainant has categorically recognized that the property situated to the northern side belongs to the petitioners.

¶77

The primary grievance projected in paragraph No.9 of the complaint is that the sale certificate issued by petitioner No.2, the then Commissioner of Sagar Municipality, allegedly overlaps with and covers the land purchased by the complainant. However, once such a stand is taken, the issue becomes one of boundary identification and ownership, which is essentially a matter for determination by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the offences alleged in the private complaint cannot be made the subject matter of a criminal trial.

¶78

Though a feeble attempt is made in the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to question the competence of petitioner No.2 in issuing the sale certificate, this Court is of the firm opinion that the competence or authority of a municipal officer in

¶79

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

issuing a sale certificate cannot be examined in the context of criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC. Moreover, petitioner No.2 had already superannuated in the year 2012, whereas the complaint came to be filed only in 2013, further weakening the substratum of the allegations. Unless the right and title of the complainant is conclusively adjudicated by a civil court, and unless there is a categorical finding that the property covered under the sale certificate is indeed part of the complainant’s land, the very foundation for continuing criminal proceedings does not exist. Permitting such prosecution would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

¶82

This Court is therefore of the clear opinion that

¶83

the dispute is purely civil in character. The present complaint appears to be a misconceived attempt by the respondent/complainant, who, having failed to secure interim relief in the civil proceedings, has resorted to initiating parallel criminal action in order to exert pressure

¶84

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

on the petitioners. Such recourse cannot be permitted in

¶87

law. The case on hand is a classic illustration of a civil dispute being given a criminal colour, which is impermissible. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No.155/2019 are liable to be quashed.

¶88

Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant has

¶89

opposed the grant of relief by contending that the complaint has been pending since 2013 and that the examination-in-chief of the complainant has already been recorded. However, this Court is unable to accept such contention. The pendency of proceedings or the stage of trial cannot stand in the way of the High Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process or is otherwise unsustainable in law. In the considered opinion of this Court, the very institution of the private complaint was unwarranted and vexatious, and therefore, to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, interference is called for.

¶90

14 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:33377 CRL.P No. 1805 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed;

¶96

ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.155/2019 (arising out of PCR No.163/2023) on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagara, Shimoga District, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶97

Sd/-

¶98

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶99

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK

S. Muhammed Sagar v. Ibrahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Muhammed Sagar v. Ibrahim

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

Sri. Prakash Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanath M Vs Smt v Hemalatha

Mr.Ganesh Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Nanjaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Manjunatha N (A1) Vs State by Bidadi Police Station

Mr H P Kareem Ali Vs the State of Karnataka