Siddashetty Vs State by Kuvempunagara Police

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KUVEMPUNAGARA POLICE IN CR.NO.28/2022 REGISTERED ON 26.03.2022 FOR THE OFEFNCES P/U/S 34, 420, 468, 471 OF IPC.

¶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:42150 CRL.P No. 7769 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner No.2 was said to be the owner of a revenue site No.74, situated in Survey No.165, Nachanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. She is said to have purchased the property on 02.09.1996 from one Gangaswamaiah. Thereafter, she is said to have gifted the property in favour of her husband (petitioner No.1) on 07.08.2015. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 has sold the property in favour of a third person on 24.05.2016. Respondent No.3 is said to be the owner of Site No.75 in the same survey number and village and is a neighbor to site No.74. When petitioner No.2 was the owner of the property, there arose a dispute between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3, which resulted in respondent No.3 filing O.S.No.921/2015 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru for a bare injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed.

¶32

Respondent No.3 was said to be a Gazetted Officer in KSRTC. It is alleged that at her behest,

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42150 CRL.P No. 7769 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent No.2 (Sub-Registrar), who is also a State Government employee filed a complaint with respondent No.1-police as late as 26.03.2022 alleging that based on a forged and concocted khata certificate said to have been issued by the Mysuru Mahanagara Palike, a gift deed by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1 was executed on 07.08.2015. Based on the said complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime No.28/2022, pending on the file of the I Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Mysuru. The same is challenged here.

¶36

The case of the petitioners is that the FIR has been registered only to harass the petitioners and it has no substance. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, but which has been given a criminal colour. It is submitted that the gift deed was registered way back in the year 2015 and the khata is in existence since then and it is in fact the authorities who acting at the behest of respondent No.3, have made a false complaint against the petitioners. It is further

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42150 CRL.P No. 7769 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

submitted that the criminal law has been set in motion against the petitioners herein at the behest of respondent No.3 who lost in O.S.No.921/2015. On the said ground it is prayed that the petition be allowed.

¶40

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that though the criminal proceedings have been initiated at the behest of respondent No.3, the same is justified. He further submits that there is an allegation made by respondent No.2, who is a State Government employee, upon receiving information from Mysore Mahanagara Palike that the khata certificate relied upon by petitioner No.2 to gift the property to her husband, petitioner No.1 is forged. Hence, it is a fit case for trial and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

The learned counsel for respondent No.3 admits that the criminal proceedings were initiated at her instance and reiterates the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader. The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is:

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42150 CRL.P No. 7769 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Whether there is misuse and abuse of the process of law by the respondents to harass the petitioners or not?

¶45

A perusal of the complaint and the FIR shows that the allegation against the petitioners is that the khata

¶46

certificate said to have been issued in favour of the petitioners by Mysuru Mahanagara Palike in respect of the site concerned is forged. The documents also further reveal that the respondents are not disputing the execution of the sale deeds and the gift deeds in respect of Site No.74, through which petitioner No.2 became the owner of the property and thereafter petitioner No.1 became the owner of the property and who has in turn sold it in favour of a third party. It is well settled that khata does not confer title, on any person. It is only a revenue record with the primary object of assessing the property for tax and is incidentally used for showing who is in possession of the property. A person becomes the owner of the property by virtue of a gift deed or a sale deed and the same are not disputed in the instant case.

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42150 CRL.P No. 7769 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Further, it is admitted that initially respondent No.3 filed an injunction suit against petitioner No.2 alleging encroachment by petitioner No.2 on her property, which is Site No.75. In the said injunction suit, the ownership of petitioner No.2 has never been disputed by respondent No.3. The said suit has been dismissed and it has attained finality. After losing the said suit with the ulterior motive, respondent No.3 has used her official position to make respondent No.2 lodge a complaint with respondent No.1-

¶50

police regarding the alleged forged khata certificate utilized by petitioner No.2 while conveying the property in favour of petitioner No.1. The said forged document is said to have been used by petitioner No.2 way back in the year 2015 and a complaint to that effect was registered in the year 2022. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered that the process of law has been abused by the respondents.

¶51

8 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:42150 CRL.P No. 7769 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Hence the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The proceedings pursuant to Crime No.28/2022, pending on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Mysuru, initiated by respondent No.1, stand quashed.

¶57

ii. Pending I.A.'s, if any, stand disposed of.

¶58

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶59

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Siddashetty v. State by Kuvempunagara Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddashetty v. State by Kuvempunagara Police

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

Shri. Bestin Roay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Arya Lohith Reddy Vs M/S. Sbms Concrete Pvt. Ltd.

Mohammed Rehaman @ Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Karnataka by

Shivananda Suvarna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri V.J. Sanjay Kumar Vs Sri.Gayathri

Nagesha S L Vs State by