Sri K Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.168/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO C AND ALSO QUASH THE THREE NCR NOTICES ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 12.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXUREL, L1 AND L2.

¶23

IN CRL.P NO. 9119/2022

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. K. RAVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT NO.126, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY POST BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE-560100

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. JOE SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SRI. MURAHARI V. S/O JAISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, PRASANNA MEENAKSHI LAYOUT, VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE -560068

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560100 KARNATAKA.

¶33

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶36

SRI. RAJATH D.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶37

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN CR.NO.97/2020, REGISTERED BY THE ELECTRONIC CITY P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 427 AND 447 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE CHARGE SHEET FILED ON 09.03.2021 IN C.C.NO.8363/2021, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 427 SECTIONS 447 AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE WITH COSTS.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

In Crl.P No.6299/2017

¶45

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the registration of an FIR by the respondent No.1 in Crime No. 168/2017 of offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 447, 504, 506, 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶46

2.(i) On 17.06.2017, the respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 that, he had purchased half portion of Site No. 14 formed in Survey No.41/4 in terms of a sale deed dated 02.01.2013 and was in possession. He claimed that one Sri.H.A.Lokesh had purchased the remaining portion of Site No. 14. He contended that the petitioner herein being an Advocate, threatened him to vacate from the possession.

¶47

(ii) He claimed that after an enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner in collusion with the owners of the property had purchased 1 acre out of 2 acres 18 guntas in Survey No.41/4. He also came to know that the katha brought out in the name of the petitioner was fraudulent which was evident from the report of the Lokayuktha and that the Deputy

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Commissioner had passed an order canceling the katha in the name of the petitioner. He also alleged that 15 days prior to lodging of the complaint, on 16.06.2017 at about 1.00 p.m., when he and his friends were in the property, the petitioner along with others forcibly trespassed into the property and threatened respondent No.2 as to how he had constructed a house on the aforesaid property and that the construction put up by the respondent No.2 would be demolished.

¶51

(iii) The respondent No.2 further alleged that on 17.06.2017 at 8.00 a.m., when the respondent No.2 went to the property, the petitioner and others formed an unlawful assembly and forcibly trespassed into the property and demolished the compound as well as a house constructed thereon using earthmoving equipment. When respondent No.2 tried to question the petitioner, he was abused and also threatened of his life if he ever made any attempt to put up construction. He therefore, requested the respondent No.1 to initiate suitable action against the petitioner. Based on the said information, the respondent No.1 registered an FIR in Crime No.168/2017 for the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

by the registration of the said FIR, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶55

3.(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, a perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 would go to show that this is a dispute relating to property between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. He contends that the respondent No.2 had purchased 1 acre in Survey No. 41/4 of Vittasandra Village in terms of the sale deed dated 25.07.2005 while respondent No.2 claimed to have purchased half portion of Site No.14 formed in Survey No.41/4 in terms of the sale deed dated 02.01.2013. He therefore contends that this is purely a civil dispute between the parties and respondent No.2 has given it a criminal flare. The respondent No.1 without considering the fact that the dispute is civil in nature has entertained the complaint of respondent No.2 and registered an FIR. He further contends that the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶56

(ii) Besides this, he contends that the respondent No.2 had filed suit in O.S No.762/2008 against persons similarly situated for perpetual injunction and that the said suit after

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

contest was dismissed. He also contends that he had filed a suit in O.S No.502/2017 against the respondent No.2 herein and others and that the said suit was withdrawn after the dismissal of suit in O.S No.762/2008. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 instead of approaching the Civil Court and establishing his better rights over the property, has rushed to the police. The respondent No.1 without ascertaining whether an offence is committed by the petitioner, registered an FIR. He therefore contends that the impugned FIR drawn against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶60

4.(i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the entire land in Survey No. 41/4 measuring 2 acre 18 guntas is developed into a residential layout and in respect of Site No. 14, a power of attorney dated 06.05.1996 was executed by Chikkapillaiah, Thimmaiah, Gurumurthy, Nagappa and Venkatesh in favour of Smt.Shakuntala Shait. He contends that the said Smt.Shakuntala Shait had executed a sale deed dated 02.01.2013, conveying half portion of site in favour of the respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 is in lawful possession of the site.

¶61

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

(ii) He further contends that the petitioner having unconscionably purchased 1 acre of land in Survey No. 41/4 out of 2 acre 18 guntas in terms of a sale deed dated 25.07.2005, is laying an unethical claim over the property in question. He further submits that the petitioner trespassed into the property of the respondent No.2 and unlawfully demolished a compound and a house constructed thereon and thereby had committed an offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC. He also contends that the petitioner along with some goondas had trespassed into the property and therefore, offences under Sections 143, 144, 120B, 504 and 506 of IPC was committed. He contends that the sale deed under which the petitioner claim title to the property is fabricated and therefore, offences under Sections 427, 468, 471, 420, 465, 34 of IPC was committed. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in registering an FIR against the petitioner. He therefore, prays that this petition be dismissed so that the respondent No.1 could investigate the offences.

¶64

The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 reiterated the submissions of the learned

¶65

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

counsel for the respondent No.2 and submitted that the katha that stood in the name of the petitioner was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the land. He also contends that the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit to recover possession of the property had unauthorizedly taken law into his hands and demolished the compound wall and a construction put up thereon. He therefore, submits that the registration of an FIR against the petitioner is justified and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶68

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶69

counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶70

A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No.1 shows that the respondent No.2 was claiming title to a portion of Site No. 14 formed in Survey No.41/4 of Vittasandra Village. On the other hand, the petitioner claimed title to 1 acre of land in Survey No. 41/4 out of 2 acre 8 guntas of Vittasandra Village. The respondent No.2 claimed that the owners of the land in Survey

¶71

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

No.41/4 had formed a layout of residential sites and had authorized Smt.Shakuntala Shait in terms of a general power of attorney and that she had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 on 02.01.2013. However, the petitioner contended to the contrary and claimed that he had purchased one acre of land in terms of the sale deed dated 25.07.2005. Therefore, the dispute is essentially a civil dispute that has to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. The jurisdictional police cannot go into the question, whether the petitioner has a better right or the respondent No.2 has a better right to the property in question. They also cannot file a charge sheet indicating, whether the petitioner is the owner or the respondent No.2 is the owner of the property in question. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute did not constitute offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506, 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the registration of the FIR against the petitioners was wholly unwarranted.

¶74

Consequently, the following order is passed:

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i. The criminal petition is allowed;

¶80

ii. The further proceedings in Crime No.168/2017 registered against the petitioner by respondent No.1 police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 447, 504, 506, 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC, is quashed.

¶81

In Crl.P No.9119/2022

¶82

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash C.C. No.8363/2021 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.97/2020 registered by Electronic City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

¶83

2(i). Respondent No.1 informed the respondent No. 2 in writing on 29.06.2020 that he had purchased portion of a Site No. 14 in Vittasandra Village from Smt. Shakuntala Shait, who was the power of attorney holder for the owners and that

¶84

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

he had constructed a compound around the property. He claimed that, on 16.06.2017, the petitioner and others came to Vittasandra Village and forcibly trespassed into the property and claimed that the property belonged to him and also threatened that if any construction is put up, the same would be raised down. Later, on 17.06.2017 at 08.00 p.m., when he went to the property, he found that the house constructed thereon and the compound was demolished. When he questioned the petitioner, he was abused. He claimed that he had already informed the Electronic City Police Station who had registered Crime No.168/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 447, 504, 506, 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471,

¶87

427 read with Section 34 of IPC. He claimed that on 25.06.2020 the petitioner and others again trespassed into the property and demolished the compound and damaged the door and window of a shed constructed thereon and carried away the construction material causing loss of nearly Rs.10,00,000/-. He therefore prayed that suitable action be initiated against the petitioner and others.

¶88

(ii). Based on this, the respondent No.2 registered Crime No.97/2020 for offences punishable under Section 447

¶89

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

and 427 of IPC and took up investigation. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of IPC. The trial Court took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of IPC and registered C.C No.8363/2021 for aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶92

3 (i). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, a perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 would go to show that this is a dispute relating to property between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. He contends that the respondent No.1 had purchased 1 acre in Survey No. 41/4 of Vittasandra Village in terms of the sale deed dated 25.07.2005 while the respondent No.1 claimed to have purchased half portion of Site No.14 formed in Survey No.41/4 in terms of the sale deed dated 02.01.2013. He, therefore, contends that this is purely a civil dispute between the parties and the respondent No.1 has given it a criminal flare. The respondent No.2 without considering the fact that the dispute is civil in nature has entertained the complaint of the respondent No.1 and registered an FIR. He

¶93

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

further contends that the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶96

(ii) Besides this, he contends that the respondent No.1 had filed suit in O.S No.762/2008 against persons similarly situated for perpetual injunction and that the said suit after contest was dismissed. He also contends that he had filed a suit in O.S No.502/2017 against the respondent No.1 herein and others and that the said suit was withdrawn after the dismissal of O.S No.762/2008. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 instead of approaching the Civil Court and establishing his better rights over the property, has rushed to the police. The respondent No.2 without ascertaining as to whether an offence is committed by the petitioner, had registered an FIR. He therefore, contends that the impugned FIR drawn against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶97

(i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the entire land in Survey No. 41/4 measuring 2 acre 18 guntas is developed into a residential layout and in respect of Site No. 14, a power of attorney dated 06.05.1996 was executed by Chikkapillaiah, Thimmaiah, Gurumurthy,

¶98

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

Nagappa and Venkatesh in favour of Smt.Shakuntala Shait. He contends that the said Smt.Shakuntala Shait had executed a sale deed dated 02.01.2013, conveying half portion of site in favour of the respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.1 is in lawful possession of the site.

¶101

(ii) He further contends that the petitioner having unconscionably purchased 1 acre of land in Survey No. 41/4 out of 2 acre 18 guntas in terms of the sale deed dated 25.07.2005, is laying an unethical claim over the property in question. He further submits that the petitioner trespassed into the property of the respondent No.1 and unlawfully demolished a compound and a house constructed thereon and thereby had committed an offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC. He also contends that the petitioner along with some goondas had trespassed into the property and therefore, offence under Section 506 of IPC was committed. He contends that the sale deed under which the petitioner claim title to the property is fabricated and therefore, offence under Section 427 was committed. Therefore, the respondent No.2 was justified in registering an FIR against the petitioner. He therefore, prays

¶102

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

that this petition be dismissed so that the respondent No.2 could investigate the offences.

¶105

The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and submitted that the katha that stood in the name of the petitioner was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the land. He also contends that the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit to recover possession of the property had unauthorizedly taken law into his hands and demolished the compound wall and a construction put up thereon. He therefore, submits that the registration of an FIR against the petitioner is justified and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶106

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶107

A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 shows that the respondent No.1 was claiming title to a portion of Site No. 14 formed in

¶108

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

Survey No.41/4 of Vittasandra Village. On the other hand, the petitioner claimed title to 1 acre of land in Survey No. 41/4 out of 2 acre 8 guntas of Vittasandra Village while the respondent No.1 claimed that the owners of the land in Survey No.41/4 had formed a layout of residential sites and had authorized Smt.Shakuntala Shait in terms of a general power of attorney and that she had executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 on 02.01.2013.

¶111

The petitioner contended to the contrary and claimed that he had purchased one acre of land in terms of the sale deed dated 25.07.2005. Therefore, the dispute is essentially a civil dispute that had to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. The jurisdictional police cannot go into the question, whether the petitioner has a better right or the respondent No.1 has a better right to the property in question. They also cannot file a charge sheet indicating, whether the petitioner is the owner or the respondent No.1 is the owner of the property in question. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute did not constitute an offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506 read with

¶112

NC: 2026:KHC:14553 CRL.P No. 6299 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9119 of 2022

¶113

18 -

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

Section 34 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner was wholly unwarranted.

¶116

Consequently, the following order is passed:

¶117

ORDER

¶118

i) The criminal petition is allowed;

¶119

ii) The further proceedings in C.C No.8363/2021

¶120

pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, is quashed.

¶121

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶122

UN,

¶123

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri K Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Ravi v. the 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

Sri. Marathe @ Mr. Vijayaraghava Marathe Vs State of Karnataka

Raghavendra B Manuvacharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu @ Chaddi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.C.Sarojamma Vs the State of Karnataka

S N Gowrishankar Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha

H J Siwani Vs the Income Tax Department