Dismissed¶74

Sri Byrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025CRL.P/3134/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing refused in cross FIRs arising from a land dispute — Crime No.208/2023 (C.C.No.8003/2024; IPC Ss.427, 504, 506, 34) versus Crime No.209/2023 dated 21.05.2023 (IPC Ss.354B, 506, 509, 504, 149, 447, 323), Kaggalipura Police Station, Ramanagara; invoked S.482 Cr.P.C. and S.528 BNSS; allegations/counter-allegations held to disclose cognizable offences; charge sheet filed in one case, investigation pending in the other; liberty reserved to seek discharge; both petitions dismissed, pending I.As disposed; High Court of Karnataka, Mohammad Nawaz J., 21-11-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:48136.

What did the court decide?

In both the cross-cases, the respective complainants having made allegations and counter-allegations, the same disclose cognizable offences. ¶69

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8003/2024 arising out of Crime No.208/2023 of Kaggalipura Police Station (offences under Sections 427, 504, 506, 34 IPC) should be quashed as against the petitioners (Sri. Byrappa and others). +1 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In both the cross-cases, the respective complainants having made allegations and counter-allegations, the same disclose cognizable offences.

¶69

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to interfere with the investigation or further proceedings at that stage.ratio¶69
In Crime No.209/2023 the police were yet to file the charge sheet, and no grounds were made to quash the proceedings.ratio¶69
Liberty was reserved to both the parties to seek discharge, if no materials are collected against them (the clause continues after a page break at para 73 of the source text).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cross criminal petitions under S.482 Cr.P.C. — CRL.P No.3134/2025 (filed under S.528 BNSS) by Sri. Byrappa and three others seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.8003/2024 (Crime No.208/2023, Kaggalipura Police Station; offences u/Ss. 427, 504, 506, 34 IPC), and CRL.P No.9285/2023 by Smt. Nidhi Nahata and five others seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.209/2023 dated 21.05.2023 (offences u/Ss. 354B, 506, 509, 504, 149, 447, 323 IPC). Both cases arise out of a land dispute; each first informant is arrayed as an accused in the other's FIR, and each side alleges trespass on 20.05.2023. Charge sheet had been filed in Crime No.208/2023, while investigation was pending in Crime No.209/2023. Held: the allegations and counter-allegations disclose cognizable offences; the Court was not inclined to interfere with the investigation or further proceedings at that stage and found no grounds to quash; liberty was reserved to both parties to seek discharge if no materials are collected against them. Both petitions dismissed; pending I.As disposed. (Mohammad Nawaz, J.; 21.11.2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3134 OF 2025 C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9285 OF 2023

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 3134/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. BYRAPPA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT JATTIPALYA, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KAGGALAHALLI, RAMANAGAR, KANAKAPURA – 562 112.

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT JATTIPALYA, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KAGGALAHALLI, RAMANAGAR, KANAKAPURA – 562 112.

¶14

SMT. VEENA, W/O SRI. BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT JATTIPALYA, HAROHALLI HOBLI,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KAGGALAHALLI, RAMANAGAR,

¶18

KANAKAPURA – 562 112.

¶19

SRI. KISHORE, S/O BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT JATTIPALYA, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KAGGALAHALLI, RAMANAGAR, KANAKAPURA – 562 112.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶24

M/S. RISHI ORCHARD PVT. LTD., NO.B1, 1301, GOKULAM APARTMENTS, DODDAKALASANDRA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 062, REPRESENTED BY HIS DIRECTOR SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA NAHATA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. LAXMIKANTHA K. B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY QUASHING THE

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8003/2024 (CR.NO.208/2023) FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶31

IN CRL.P NO. 9285/2023

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SMT. NIDHI NAHATA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O SRI. PRAKASH CHAND NAHATA,

¶34

SRI. PRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SRI. PRAKASH,

¶35

SMT. BHUMIKA NAHATA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O SRI. PRAKASH CHAND NAHATA,

¶36

SRI. ASISH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SUNNY,

¶37

SMT. DIVYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O SRI. PRAKASH CHAND NAHATA,

¶38

SRI. PRAKASH CHAND NAHATA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE NORATAN NAHATA,

¶39

THE PETITIONERS ARE DESCRIBED AS RESIDENTS OF B.1, 1301, ”GOKULAM APARTMENT”,

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶44

...PETITIONERS

¶45

(BY SRI. LAXMIKANTHA K. B., ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, KAGGALIPURA, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶48

SRI. BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, RESIDENT OF JATTIPALYA, KAGGALAHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶51

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.209/2023 DATED 21.05.2023 FOR THE OFFENCES THAT ARE MADE PENAL U/S 354B, 506, 509, 504, 149, 447 AND 323 OF IPC REGISTERED AT KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA SUBDIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

Both these petitions arise out of case and a counter case registered against each other.

¶58

Crime No.208/2023 is registered on a complaint lodged by one Sri.Prakash Chandra Nahata and Crime No.209/2023 is registered on a complaint lodged by one Sri.Byrappa. It can be seen from the FIR that both the first informants are arraigned as one of the accused.

¶59

FIR in Crime No.208/2023 of Kaggalipura police station is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 149, 379, 420, 447, 448, 470 and 327 of Indian Penal Code against the first informant in the counter case and four others. Challenging the registration of the FIR and the consequent proceedings, the accused therein have preferred Criminal Petition No.3134/2025.

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Similarly, FIR in Crime No.209/2023 of Kaggalipura police station is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 506, 509, 504, 149, 447 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, against one Nidhi Nahata and others. The first informant in the first case has been arraigned as accused No.6.

¶63

It is the primary contention of the learned counsel appearing on both side that false cases are registered against each other. From the material on record, it can be seen that the incident is as a result of a land dispute, wherein both the parties claim that the accused named in the FIR have trespassed into the land, etc. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit , a status quo order was passed which was subsequently vacated by the Civil Court.

¶64

The complainant in Crime No.208/2023 has alleged that on 20.05.2023, the accused named in the FIR and others having forged certain documents relating to the property in question, trespassed into the property with JCB and destroyed the fencing, cut the electric and UPS wires and also cut and

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

removed about 30 trees and caused loss to the tune of lakhs of rupees. It is also alleged that they have stolen certain articles and cash kept in the house, etc.

¶68

In Crime No.209/2023, it is alleged that on 20.05.2023, when the complainant and others were cultivating the land in question, the accused came along with bouncers, trespassed into the land, outraged the modesty of complainant's wife, threatened with dire consequences, etc.

¶69

It is pertinent to mention that in Crime No.208/2023, the police on completion of investigation have filed charge sheet, whereas, in Crime No.209/2023, the investigation is pending. In both the cases, the respective complainants having made allegations and counter allegations, which disclose cognizable offences. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation or further proceedings at this stage. In Crime No.209/2023, the police are yet to file charge sheet. No grounds are made to quash the proceedings. Hence, reserving liberty to both the parties to seek discharge, if no

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:48136 CRL.P No. 3134 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9285 of 2023

¶71

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

materials are collected against them, both the petitions are

¶74

dismissed.

¶75