Disposed¶54

Munishamanna v. State by

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026CRL.P/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 482 CrPC quashing of charge sheet; Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC (cheating, forgery, intimidation); Section 173(8) CrPC further investigation and fresh final report; Section 94A Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Case No.RUC(A)90/2016-17 grant cancellation and remittal; W.P Nos.39280/2019, 42489/2019, 14633/2022; LND.08/2018; LND/01/2021; Crime No.22/2019; C.C. No.1047/2019; Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District; Sy. No. 44/P5 Cheemandahalli; sale agreement Rs.1,26,00,000; earnest money Rs.25,00,000; CRL.P No. 54 of 2022; Justice R. Nataraj.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C. No.1047/2019 (Crime No.22/2019) quashed; respondent No.1 directed to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and file a fresh final report; petition disposed of on these terms. ¶54

Munishamanna Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1047/2019 (arising out of Crime No.22/2019) against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The charge sheet filed by respondent No.1 in C.C. No.1047/2019 (arising out of Crime No.22/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners is quashed.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1 is directed to conduct further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a fresh final report.

¶53

Key takeaways

Before filing a charge sheet, respondent No.1 was bound to take into consideration the intervening revenue material and assess whether the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC were made out against the petitioners.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj, J.), disposing of CRL.P No. 54 of 2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC: the charge sheet in C.C. No.1047/2019 (arising out of Crime No.22/2019) against three petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC - founded on an alleged agreement to sell land in Sy. No. 44/P5, Cheemandahalli village, Hoskote Taluk, for Rs.1,26,00,000 with Rs.25,00,000 earnest money - is quashed. The charge sheet rested on revenue proceedings in Case No.RUC(A)90/2016-17 treating the land as Government land; those proceedings had been quashed by this Court's order dated 12.09.2019 in W.P Nos.39280/2019 and 42489/2019 and remitted, and the subsequent orders (Assistant Commissioner's order dated 02.12.2020 confirming genuinity of the grant but denying regularization under Section 94A Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 30.05.2022 dismissing appeal LND/01/2021) are under challenge in pending W.P No.14633/2022. The police was bound to consider this material before filing the charge sheet. Respondent No.1 directed to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and file a fresh final report.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17946 CRL.P No. 54 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 54 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUNISHAMANNA S/O LATE GIDDAPPA AGED 51 YEARS,

¶10

N. LATHA W/O MUNISHAMANNA AGED 45 YEARS,

¶11

C.M. ALOK, S/O MUNISHAMANNA AGED 27 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIMANDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY HOSKOTE POLICE HOSKOTE CIRCLE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

¶19

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

BASAVARAJ S/O LATE B. BASAVAIAH AGED 50 YEARS, R/A NO.82, 5^TH CROSS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:17946 CRL.P No. 54 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

RAMAKRISHNA MAIN ROAD M.V. EXTENSION, HOSKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶27

SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1047/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HOSKOTE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 OF IPC PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have challenged prosecution launched against them by the respondent No.1 in C.C No.1047/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosakote, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶33

The sum and substance of the information furnished

¶34

by the respondent No.2 with respondent No.1 was that the petitioner No.1 claiming to be the owner of the land in Sy. No. 44/P5 situate at Cheemandahalli village, Hosakote Taluk,

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17946 CRL.P No. 54 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Bengaluru Rural District, measuring an extent of 03 Acres had offered it for sale and that the respondent No.2 agreed to purchase it for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,26,00,000/and paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as earnest money and an agreement of sale was executed by the petitioner in his favour.

¶38

He alleged that the petitioners were unduly delaying the conclusion of the transaction. He later came to know that the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Doddaballapura, had initiated suo motu action for cancellation of the grant of the land in Sy. No.44/P5 made in favour of the mother of the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.2 claimed that the revenue records in the name of the mother of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the said land were cancelled and steps were taken for recovering the possession of the said land. The respondent No.2 claimed that he came to know that the revenue authorities had initiated action in Case No.RUC(A)90/2016-17 for the aforesaid purpose and therefore, claimed that the petitioners had illegally tried to transfer a land which did not belong to them but belonged to the State Government. Based on this, a case in Crime No.22/2019 was registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:17946 CRL.P No. 54 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC. Column No.17 of the charge sheet shows that the charge sheet was filed on the premise that revenue proceedings were initiated in Case No.RUC(A) 90/2016-17, whereby the land in question was treated as a Government land.

¶43

When this petition is listed for orders, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, in Case No.RUC(A)90/2016-17 was challenged by the mother of the petitioner No.1 in filing a revision petition in LND.08/2018 before the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, though unsuccessfully and later, before this Court in W.P Nos.39280/2019 and 42489/2019 and this Court in terms of the order dated 12.09.2019, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 15.09.2018

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:17946 CRL.P No. 54 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the proceeding in Case No.RUC(A) 90/2016-17 was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner for disposal on merits. It is stated that the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 02.12.2020 passed in Case No.RUC(A) 71/2019 (old No. RUC(A) 90/2016-17), had confirmed the genuinity of the grant made in favour of the mother of the petitioner No.1, but however held that she was not entitled to regularization as she possessed large extent of land. Thus, it was ordered to initiate action under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the same was challenged by Smt. Muniyamma and the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Muninarayanappa before the Deputy Commissioner in Case No.LND/01/2021, where an order dated 30.05.2022 was passed dismissing the appeal. He contends that the said orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are also questioned before this Court in W.P No.14633/2022 and the same is pending consideration.

¶48

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the above facts.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:17946 CRL.P No. 54 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 before filing a charge sheet was bound to take into consideration the above material and must have assessed the material to find out whether offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the IPC were made out against the petitioners or not.

¶53

In that view of the matter, the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1 in C.C. No.1047/2019 (arising out of Crime No.22/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to conduct further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a fresh final report.

¶54

The petition stands disposed off on the above terms.

¶55

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Charge sheet filed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, prosecuted as C.C. No.1047/2019 (arising out of Crime No.22/2019); the entire proceedings were sought to be quashed.¶42
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote
Prior proceeding
Complaint by respondent No.2 alleging the petitioners tried to sell State-owned land in Sy. No. 44/P5, Cheemandahalli village, Hosakote Taluk; Crime No.22/2019 registered against the petitioners.¶38
Prior proceeding
Sub-Divisional Officer, Doddaballapura initiated suo motu action for cancellation of the grant of Sy. No.44/P5 made in favour of the mother of petitioner No.1; revenue proceedings in Case No.RUC(A)90/2016-17.¶38
Prior proceeding
Order dated 15.09.2018 of the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.RUC(A)90/2016-17 challenged by the mother of petitioner No.1 in revision petition LND.08/2018 before the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District - unsuccessful.¶43
Prior proceeding
W.P Nos.39280/2019 and 42489/2019 allowed by this Court's order dated 12.09.2019, quashing the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 20.07.2019 and the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 15.09.2018.¶43
Prior proceeding
Proceeding in Case No.RUC(A) 90/2016-17 remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner for disposal on merits.¶47
Prior proceeding
By order dated 02.12.2020 in Case No.RUC(A) 71/2019 (old No. RUC(A) 90/2016-17), the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the genuinity of the grant to the mother of petitioner No.1 but denied regularization (large landholding) and ordered action under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.¶47
Prior proceeding
Appeal in Case No.LND/01/2021 before the Deputy Commissioner by Smt. Muniyamma and the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Muninarayanappa; dismissed by order dated 30.05.2022.¶47
Prior proceeding
Orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner questioned before this Court in W.P No.14633/2022, which is pending consideration.¶47

Munishamanna v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munishamanna v. State by

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

Sri Kalamadegowda Vs the Tahasildar

Mr. Zabiullah, Vs Smt. Lalitha K S

A.Ammoji, Vs Yashodamma

Sri Ravi Joshi Vs State of Karnataka

Parshwanath Enterprise Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath a Vs State of Karnataka