Mohammed Roshan Khan Vs B M Venkatareddy

S. AKBAR SYED OLI, S/O. K. SHANTH MOHAMED, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.87/4, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, NEAR KEERTHI APARTMENT, HORAMAVU ROAD, RAMMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 043.

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED KALEEM.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

B M VENKATAREDDY S/O. LATE B.A. MUNISHAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT MELUR VILLAGE, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562 101.

¶16

B.M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. LATE B.A. MUNISHAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT BANNIKUPPA VILLAGE,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44059 CRL.RP No. 1517 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562 101.

¶21

ESHWAR SWAROOP, S/O. C. MUNIKRISHNA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.1, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, CIL LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶22

C.S. SURYAKANTHA RAO, S/O. LATE SRINIVAS RAO, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 102, 7^TH CROSS, WILLIAMS TOWN, EXTENSION, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-560 046.

¶23

R. RAVINDRA RAO, S/O. G. RATNOJI RAO AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 120, MACKAN ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 051.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET SIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2025 IN PCR ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. C.J.M. AT BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:44059 CRL.RP No. 1517 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Challenging order dated 20.09.2025 passed by VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore City dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein as not maintainable, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶33

Sri Mohammed Kaleem, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had purchased property bearing site no.69, P.I.D. No.92-103-69, situated at Marappa Garden, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore measuring 3293 Sq. Ft. under registered sale deed dated 06.06.2025 from Riyaz Ahmed; it was submitted that, said Riyaz Ahmed had purchased said property from Sri Lakshmipathy Babu under registered sale deed dated 01.10.2014, who in turn had purchased from under registered sale deed dated 31.03.1995 from one Sri M.V. Ramakrishna. It was submitted, respondents no.1 to 5 herein who are not having any right, title or interest over property had fabricated false sale deeds, bogus khata certificates and fake tax receipts etc., in order to wrest title over property. They had also trespassed into petitioners' property. It was submitted, petitioners' vendor had earlier filed criminal complaints against

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:44059 CRL.RP No. 1517 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

respondents based on which J.C. Nagar Police had filed charge sheet in C.C. no.20638/2015, in pursuance of which respondents no.1 and 2 were convicted on 07.08.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, while respondents no.3 to 5 were acquitted. Despite having suffered said order, by staking claim under documents held to be fabricated, they trespassed into petitioner's property. Therefore, petitioner sought to lodge complaint with jurisdictional Police Station. However, complaint was not registered. He further approached to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Yeshwanthpur and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, but, no action were taken. Hence, he had filed private complaint.

¶38

But referring to order of conviction of respondents in C.C.no.20638/2015 complaint was dismissed. It was submitted, reasons cited by learned Magistrate for dismissing complaint was purchase of property by petitioner would not give rise to cause of action for such suit. It was submitted complaints referred to were for offence of forgery, while subject matter of complaint in instant case was for trespass which were

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44059 CRL.RP No. 1517 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

distinct offences and were not based on same cause of action. It was submitted that petitioner having purchased property had become its owner and entitled to protect it from trespass. Therefore, rejection of complaint on above reasons was contrary to law. Hence, sought for allowing Revision Petition.

¶42

Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

¶43

From above, it is seen that that petitioners' private complaint was rejected by learned magistrate on sole ground that on an earlier occasion, Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP had filed complaint against respondents no.1 and 2 along with others for offences of forgery of corporation records etc., said proceedings had resulted in order of conviction of respondents no.1 and 2 herein on 07.08.2025. When complaint filed was as purchaser to protect property against trespass, same could not be rejected on ground of maintainability, when cause of action is separate and distinct.

¶44

It is also seen that learned Magistrate had not provided opportunity to petitioner to examine himself and produce material, which would be an infraction of law as per ratio laid down by this Court in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Andhra

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:44059 CRL.RP No. 1517 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Pradesh and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2022 KAR 3127 .

¶49

Since complaint was rejected at inception, there would

¶50

be no need for issuance of notice to respondents in this petition. It is incumbent to set-aside order and remit matter back to trial Court for consideration after recording sworn statement of the complainant.

¶51

For aforesaid reasons, revision petition is allowed . Impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed by VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore City is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Magistrate for recording sworn statement of complainant and thereafter pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶53

RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Mohammed Roshan Khan v. B M Venkatareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Roshan Khan v. B M Venkatareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokesh. S. R. Vs Smt. Sandhya v Pai

Dr Syed Ahmed Kafeel Vs Zamani Kafeel

Shri Ravi Alias Sandwash Ravi Vs Smt Mohanalakshmi

Arjun Chandra Vs Praveen Kumar K

M/S Jaya Engineering Works Vs Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan

Sri Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka by