Dismissed

Smt. Padmavathi v. the Tahsildar-Cum-Taluk Executive Magistrate

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2026CRL.P/5808/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a Revisional Court order that had set aside a Tahsildar's order under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The Court found the Revisional Court's reasoning — that the Tahsildar acted without subjective satisfaction in a matter involving a civil dispute over property possession — to be sound and declined to interfere. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Padmavathi Vs the Tahsildar-Cum-Taluk… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:51490 CRL.P No. 5808 of 2020

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010287052020

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5808 OF 2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. PADMAVATHI, WIFE OF LATE PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT YAKKEGONDI VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNURU HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 577 014.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. T.P. VASUNDARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR-CUM-TALUK EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 577 014.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHEBENNURU POLICE STATION, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 577 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:51490 CRL.P No. 5808 of 2020

¶20

CNR: KAHC010287052020

¶21

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶22

SRI. RANGAPPA, SON OF LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RETIRED ENGINEER, RESIDING AT YAKKEGONDI VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNURU HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE: 577 014.

¶23

SRI. TIMMANNNA, SON OF LATE TIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RETIRED ENGINEER, RESIDING AT YAKKEGONDI VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNURU HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 577 014.

¶24

(VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2026, R3 AND R4 ARE DELETED)

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2026, R3 AND R4 HAVE DIED)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.08.2020 IN CRL.RP.NO.12/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:51490 CRL.P No. 5808 of 2020

¶32

CNR: KAHC010287052020

¶33

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are no more.

¶36

The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the order passed by the Revisional Court. The main ground urged in the petition is that while passing such an order, the learned Judge has not applied his judicious mind and order is capricious.

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State would submit that the Revisional Court has passed the reasoned order and also comes to the conclusion that scope of enquiry under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was only to find out whether there is a need to execute any bond as provided under law. The Taluka Executive Magistrate could not pass an order regarding the possession of the properties of either of the parties.

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:51490 CRL.P No. 5808 of 2020

¶41

CNR: KAHC010287052020

¶42

Having perused the reasoning given by the Revisional Court, it is very clear that there was a civil dispute between the parties. Original suit was filed and being aggrieved by the same, R.A. is filed and even R.S.A. is also filed before the before the High Court. If all the parties were aggrieved regarding possession of the properties, the same would have been urged before the High Court in R.S.A.No.1030/2018. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court has committed an error, cannot be accepted. The Revisional Court comes to the conclusion that the Tahsildar without applying the mind and also subjective satisfaction, passed the order. When such a reasoned order is passed by the Revisional Court coming to the conclusion that the order of the Tahsildar invoking the provisions of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and other provisions is not based on the subjective satisfaction, this Court does not find any ground to set aside the order of the Revisional Court.

¶43

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶44

would submit that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the parties to Section 107 proceedings, are no more and only remaining

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:51490 CRL.P No. 5808 of 2020

¶47

¶48

CNR: KAHC010287052020

¶49

parties are State i.e., Tahsildar and Police. Hence, no grounds

¶50

to entertain this petition.

¶51

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt. Padmavathi v. the Tahsildar-Cum-Taluk Executive Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Padmavathi v. the Tahsildar-Cum-Taluk Executive Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases