Allowed¶73

Smt Thopamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025CRL.P/9472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; abuse of process of law; civil dispute given criminal colour; trespass and forgery allegations; Sections 447, 448, 420, 468 read with Section 34 IPC; permanent injunction suit dismissed after full-fledged trial; O.S.No.380/2009; O.S.No.1579/2009; C.C.No.2029/2018; PCR.No.50/2018; CR.No.129/2018; Sy.No.1/7 Narayanappanapalya village; Nelamangala; Bengaluru Rural District; Karnataka High Court; CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018; Justice M.I. Arun; complainant died during pendency (order dated 03.06.2025).

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2029/2018 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District; petition allowed. ¶73

Smt Thopamma Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2029/2018 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District; petition allowed.

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2029/2018 against the petitioners (allegations of trespass and forgery relating to Sy.No.1/7 of Narayanappanapalya village, arising from a civil dispute given a criminal colour) constitute an abuse of process of law and should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶42

Court's answer

Perusal of the record indicates that the civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 has been given a criminal colour.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.2 and his legal heirs have failed to establish their rights over the property concerned and the fact that the petitioners have illegally encroached upon the property in O.S.No.380/2009.

¶67

Key takeaways

Under the said circumstances, the criminal petition will have to be allowed.ratio¶71
The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2029/2018 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District stand quashed.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by seven members of one family (children of late G.C.Hanumaiah) seeking quashing of C.C.No.2029/2018 (offences under Sections 447, 448, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC) pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. The case arose from a private complaint by respondent no.2 (C.S.Nanjundaiah, who died during pendency vide court order dated 03.06.2025) alleging trespass and forgery in respect of Sy.No.1/7 of Narayanappanapalya village; the complaint was first not registered by police as a civil dispute, then referred to police, resulting in an FIR and police report. The underlying dispute was civil: petitioner no.1's O.S.No.1579/2009 was pending, while respondent no.2's O.S.No.380/2009 suit for permanent injunction was dismissed after a full-fledged trial, with Issue Nos.1 to 3 answered in the negative. Holding that a civil dispute had been given a criminal colour and that respondent no.2 and his legal heirs had failed to establish their rights over the property or the petitioners' alleged illegal encroachment, the High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.2029/2018 and allowed the petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9472 OF 2018

¶8

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

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. THOPAMMA D/O LATE G.C.HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶11

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE G.C.HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶12

SRI. GANGAIAH S/O LATE G.C.HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE G.C.HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶15

SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA @ HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE G.C.HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS (WORNGLY MENTIONED AS THIMMARAYAPPA IN CHARGE SHEET AND CC NO. 2029/2018)

¶16

SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE G.C.HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶17

SRI. G.THIMMARAJU

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDING AT GEJJAGADAHALLI VILLAGE DASANPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 123.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA N., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

C.S.NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT NO.5/A, 15^TH CROSS WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 086.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.06.2025, R2 DEAD)

¶30

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.50/2018, CR.NO.129/2018, C.C.NO.2029/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANAGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Pursuant to a private complaint filed by respondent no.2 a police report is filed against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 447, 448, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. It has resulted in C.C.No.2029/2018 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶38

The case of the petitioners is that, there was a civil dispute between petitioners and respondent no.2 in respect of Sy.No.1/7 of Narayanappanapalya village, it resulted in petitioner no.1 preferring O.S.No.1579/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, which is still pending. It is submitted that respondent no.2 also filed

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

O.S.No.380/2009 for permanent injunction in respect of

¶42

the same property, which has been dismissed after a fullfledged trial. The petitioners have produced a copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.380/2009 in this regard. It is submitted by the petitioners that with a view of obtaining undue advantage, respondent no.2 has given a criminal colour to the civil dispute between the petitioners and himself. On the said ground, it is prayed that proceedings in C.C.No.2029/2018 be quashed. It is also submitted that subsequently respondent no.2 has died.

¶43

Learned High Court Government Pleader upon

¶44

instructions, submits that the petitioners and respondent no.2 had a civil dispute in respect of Sy.No.1/7 of Narayanappanapalya village. He also submits that

¶45

respondent no.2 lodged a complaint with the police, but the same was not registered as the police were of the opinion that it is a civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.2. It is further submitted that, thereafter respondent no.2 filed a private complaint before

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the Court which resulted in reference of the said matter to police for investigation and thereafter an FIR was registered, investigation was done and a police report has been filed. However, he admits that subsequent to filing of the police report, civil Court in O.S.No.380/2009 has dismissed the claim of respondent no.2.

¶50

Perusal of the records reveal that the allegations made by respondent no.2 against the petitioners pertain to trespass and forgery of documents in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.1/7 of Narayanappanapalya village. Respondent no.2 had filed O.S.No.380/2009, which is a suit for permanent injunction

¶51

against some of the petitioners herein. The trial Court in the said case had framed the following issues:

¶52

"ISSUE No.1

¶53

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner thereof?

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ISSUE No.2:

¶57

Whether the Plaintiff proves that the interference made by defendants over the suit schedule property?

¶58

ISSUE No.3:

¶59

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

¶60

ISSUE No.4:

¶61

What order or decree?"

¶62

and had answered them as follows:

¶63

"ISSUE No.1: In the Negative ISSUE No.2: In the negative ISSUE No.3: In the negative ISSUE No.4: As per the final order"

¶64

The said suit has been dismissed.

¶65

Perusal of the record indicates that a civil

¶66

dispute between petitioners and respondent No.2 has been given a criminal colour and further respondent no.2 and

¶67

his legal heirs have failed to establish their rights over the property concerned and the fact that petitioners have

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44913 CRL.P No. 9472 of 2018

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

illegally encroached upon the property in

¶71

O.S.No.380/2009. Under the said circumstances, the criminal petition will have to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) The proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.2029/2018 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District stands quashed.

¶74

ii) The petition is accordingly allowed .

¶75

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶76

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt Thopamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Thopamma 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

Prakash M Vs Smt Munirathnamma

Sri Yellappa Vs State by Hennur Police Station

Chikkaboraiah Vs Honnamma

Sri Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Susheelamma Vs Smt Devamma

Sri. Shakeel Ahamad Vs the State of Karnataka