Sri Nagesh.S.N. Vs State of Karnataka

SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY S N S/O LATE R. NARASIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SOMASHETTAHALLI HOSUR HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE 561213

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1

¶23

SRI. BASAVARAJA B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.102/2023 ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.88/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 191, 196, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present criminal petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶32

"Wherefore, petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire record and Quash the entire proceedings against petitioners in crime 102/2023 arising out of PCR 88/23 for the offence under Section 191, 196 and 420 R/W 34 of IPC pending on the file of the learned Addl.Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Gowribidanur chikkaballapura district and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶33

2. PCR No.88/2023 was filed before the Addl.Civil

¶34

Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, by respondent No.2 herein, wherein he has contended that he is the son of Late Narasiyappa, who was in turn the son of Late Kamenallappa and that he has succeeded to the property situated in Survey No.113/5A, measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Somashettyhalli Village, Hosuru Hobli,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Gowribidanuru Taluk. It is further contended that the petitioners herein have created false documents and forged certain documents under the false premise that they are the legal heirs of Late Narasiyappa and Kamenallappa and are trying to knock off the property.

¶38

The trial Court has referred the matter for investigation to respondent No.1-police, who in turn have registered an FIR in Crime No.102/2023 and have taken up the matter for investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed praying that the proceedings in Crime No.102/2023 be quashed.

¶39

The case of the petitioners herein is that they are the legal representatives of Late Narasiyappa and Kamenallappa and after their demise, they have succeeded to 3 acres 15 guntas of land in Survey No.113/5A of Somashettyhalli Village. They place reliance on the order of the Tahsildar, wherein the revenue records have been changed into their name in respect of the property and the same is upheld by the Assistant

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Commissioner in Dgï.J.(UË) 242/2013-14, which order has been again upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in Dgï.J/ 88/2022-23.

¶43

It is further submitted that respondent No.2 along with a few others, has preferred O.S.No.577/2024, which is pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur and the same is filed in respect of the same property, which is the subject matter of the present criminal petition and it is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is also submitted that no interim orders have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs therein.

¶44

It is contended that because of respondent No.2 has been unsuccessful before the revenue authorities and before the Civil Court to get a favourable order, a false case has been filed by way of a private complaint, which has been referred for investigation without application of mind and the police have registered an FIR against the petitioners without any application of mind. On the said

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ground, it is prayed that the criminal petition be allowed and the proceedings be quashed against them.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that he and few others are the actual owners of the property concerned and they are the true legal heirs of Late Narasiyappa and late Kamenallappa and by misusing the similar name of the ancestors of the petitioners, they have clandestinely got the revenue documents mutated in their name in respect of the property concerned. He submits that, if a proper investigation is conducted, the truth will reveal itself and prays that the criminal petition be dismissed.

¶50

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶51

supports the contention of respondent No.2 and submits that the criminal petition may be dismissed.

¶52

The question that arises for consideration is:

¶53

Whether, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, a criminal

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

investigation can be permitted to go on against the petitioners herein?

¶58

It is seen from the records that an FIR is registered against the petitioners herein under Sections 191, 196, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Section 191 of the IPC pertains to giving false evidence. Section 196 of the IPC pertains to using evidence known to be false. Section 420 of the IPC pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

¶59

The facts alleged against the petitioners herein is that by misusing the similar names of their ancestors as that of respondent No.2, by rendering false evidence, they have clandestinely got the revenue documents in respect of the property mutated in their names.

¶60

The version of the petitioners have been believed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner while passing

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

an order to mutate their names in the revenue records regarding the property concerned and the version of respondent No.2 has been disbelieved. No doubt respondent No.2 or such other person who claims to be interested in the property has a right to challenge the said orders in the manner known to law. They are also having the liberty to approach the Civil Court to claim the ownership of the property concerned, which they have done by way of filing O.S.No.577/2024. But under the circumstances, once an order has been passed by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioners herein, the question of maintaining a criminal complaint against the petitioners on the ground that by adducing false evidence and cheating they have got the property mutated in their names does not arise. It is a clear case wherein the respondents have sought to give a criminal colour to a civil case. As they have not been successful so far in the interse dispute, respondent No.2 has lodged a criminal

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

complaint against the petitioners herein that cannot be permitted. It is nothing but abuse of the process of law and an unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Hence, the following:

¶67

OREDER

¶68

i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

¶69

ii. The proceedings pursuant to the filing of PCR No.88/2023, pending on the file of the Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur and Crime No.102/2023, pending on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Gowribidanur, Chikkaballapura District against the petitioners herein stands quashed.

¶70

iii. It is hereby made clear that the observations made herein above pertains only to the case on hand and will not affect the decision to be rendered in

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:43454 CRL.P No. 5667 of 2023

¶72

10 -

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

O.S.No.577/2024, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur or such other proceedings that may be initiated by respondent No.2 or other persons claiming right over the property concerned against the petitioners and the same shall be decided based on the pleadings and the evidence let in before the competent

¶75

Authorities or Courts concerned.

¶76

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶77

CH

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Nagesh.S.N. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagesh.S.N. 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

Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Suresh. N. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijayakrishna M Vs the State

Sri. Pramod Shivashankar Vs Smt. Vaishnavi

Channakeshava B Tingarikar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Sri. Sanjiva R Vs the State of Karnataka