Allowed¶44

Smt. Shilpa Ashok v. State by Jnanabharathi

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025CRL.P/8102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.482 CrPC quashing — Ss.427, 447 IPC trespass/compound wall — alleged trespass 18.05.2022 — civil suit O.S.No.2795/2022 pending; status quo ordered in MFA.No.6578/2022 (20.06.2023) over 40x9 ft site — ingredients not made out — abuse of process — CRL.P No.8102 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz J), 10.03.2025 — petition allowed, C.C.No.4707/2023 quashed without affecting civil rights.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.4707/2023 pending on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 IPC quashed, without affecting the parties' rights to be decided by the Civil Court. ¶44

Smt. Shilpa Ashok Vs State by Jnanabharathi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.4707/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 IPC, pending before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

When the rights of the parties are yet to be decided in respect of the property in question where the alleged trespass has taken place, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offences under Section 427 and 447 of IPC are made out.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, the parties being at liberty to establish their right before the Civil Court.

¶42

Key takeaways

Quashing of the proceedings shall not affect the rights of the parties to be decided by the Civil Court.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 8102 of 2023 (Section 482 Cr.P.C.), High Court of Karnataka, Mohammad Nawaz J., decided 10.03.2025 — Quashing of C.C.No.4707/2023 (Sections 427 and 447 IPC) pending before IX Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru. Respondent No.2/complainant, purchaser of Sy.No.58/105/179/99/1,2,3,4,5/2 (about 7012 sq.ft) at a Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank auction on 28.01.2022, alleged that on 18.05.2022 both petitioners trespassed and attempted to put up a compound wall. Petitioner No.1's suit O.S.No.2795/2022 (permanent injunction; declaration re Site.No.752/E by amendment) is pending; interim injunction therein was vacated, and in MFA.No.6578/2022 this Court ordered status quo on 20.06.2023 over the disputed site measuring 40x9 feet. Held: where the parties' rights over the property are yet to be decided and status quo operates, the ingredients of Sections 427/447 IPC are not made out; continuance of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process; parties are free to establish their rights before the Civil Court. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed, expressly without prejudice to civil rights.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10081 CRL.P No. 8102 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8102 OF 2023

¶7

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

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHILPA ASHOK, W/O SRI. R. ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶10

ASHOK, S/O RANGAPPA,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SANJEEVANAGARA, MUDLAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶14

(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

SRI. PUTTANNA, S/O PUTTANNAIAH,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:10081 CRL.P No. 8102 of 2023

¶21

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.58, 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, BASAWESHWARA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATISH V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4707/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 447 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The entire proceeding in CC.No.4707/2023 pending against the petitioners on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 427 and 447 of IPC is sought to be quashed in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

In the complaint, respondent No.2 has alleged that on 18.05.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., both the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10081 CRL.P No. 8102 of 2023

¶32

petitioners have illegally trespassed into his property and attempted to put up a compound wall.

¶33

Complainant claims to be the owner of property bearing Sy.No.58/105/179/99/1,2,3,4,5/2 measuring about 7012 Sq.feet, said to have been purchased by him under an auction conducted by the Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank Limited on 28.01.2022. Petitioner No.1 herein is said to have filed a suit in OS.No.2795/2022 before the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 26.03.2022, seeking permanent injunction and also by way of amendment, for declaration in respect of Site.No.752/E. In the said suit initially, interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs' property, but the order was vacated, which was challenged by petitioner No.1, before this Court in MFA.No.6578/2022 wherein, this Court vide order dated 20.06.2023 has ordered the parties to maintain status quo

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:10081 CRL.P No. 8102 of 2023

¶36

in respect of disputed site measuring to an extent of 40x9 feet.

¶37

It is contended by the learned counsel

¶38

appearing for respondent No.2 that the property where the petitioners' have encroached and tried to put up a compound wall is part of the property belonging to the complainant and therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out.

¶39

The allegations are that on 18.05.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., these petitioners' have encroached the property in question and tried to put up a compound wall. It is not disputed that pertaining to the property in question there is a suit pending before the Trial Court and this Court in MFA.No.6578/2022 has directed the parties to maintain status quo . When the rights of the parties are yet to be decided in respect of the property in question where the alleged trespass has taken place, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offences under Section 427 and 447 of IPC are made out. The parties are at liberty to

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:10081 CRL.P No. 8102 of 2023

¶42

establish their right before the Civil Court. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Petition is allowed .

¶45

ii. The entire proceedings against the petitioners, in CC.No.4707/2023 pending on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 427 and 447 of IPC are quashed.

¶46

iii. It is made clear that quashing of the proceedings shall not affect the rights of the parties to be decided by the Civil Court.

¶47

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶48

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK

Smt. Shilpa Ashok v. State by Jnanabharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shilpa Ashok v. State by Jnanabharathi

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

Rishi Singh Thakur Vs Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Sri Jay Ramani Vs Sri. S.M. Krishnappa

Mr Maruthi @ Ramachandappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.S. Ramesh Vs State by Karnataka

Ajay Kumar Gaali @ Gaali Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Rajesh Eswarappa Vs State of Karnataka