Sri Ravichandra H R vs State Of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Analysis of the law |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 18, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri Ravichandra H R vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13573
CRL.P No. 7805 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 7679 of 2025

            HC-KAR

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                     BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7805 OF 2025
                                      C/W
                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7679 OF 2025

            IN CRL.P No. 7805/2025

            BETWEEN:

            MR.NAYEEM NOOR
            S/O NOOR MOHAMMED OMER,
            AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
            R/AT:NO. 88, MOSQUE ROAD,
            OPP. KFC, FRAZER TOWN,
            BENGALURU - 560 005.
                                                           ...PETITIONER

Digitally (BY SRI KIRAN S.JAVALI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY SRI AMAR ALEXANDER CORREA, ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
AND:

            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                  BY BEGUR POLICE STATION,
                  BENGALURU - 560 068.
                  REPRESENTED BY
                  STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  BENGALURU - 01.
                          -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:13573
                                   CRL.P No. 7805 of 2025
                               C/W CRL.P No. 7679 of 2025

HC-KAR

1. SRI NAGARAJU
   S/O. MUNISWAMY @
   MUNISHAMI@ CHINNAPPA,
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
   R/AT: NO. 1115, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
   BEGURU, BENGALURU - 560 068.
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;

   SMT.SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

   THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 BNNS, 2023 PRAYING TO
   QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 30.05.2024,
   29.05.2025 IN CR.NO.122/2025 BY RESPONDENT NO.1
   BEGURU POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(2)(v), 3(1)(g) OF
   THE SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEC.115(2), 138, 190, 304(2),
   310(2), 324(5), 331(4), 351(3), 352 OF THE BNS 2023
   CORRESPONDING SEC.323, 362, 149, 395, 427, 457, 506,
   504) PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
   SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
   WHO IS ACCUSED NO.2 VIDE ANNENXURE A AND B.

IN CRL.P NO. 7679/2025

BETWEEN:

1. SRI RAVICHANDRA H.R., S/O RAJASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.748, 18TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 095. -3- NC: 2026:KHC:13573 CRL.P No. 7805 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7679 of 2025

HC-KAR

                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR

 SRI CHANDRA NAIK T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY BEGUR POLICE STATION,
   REPRESENTED BY
   PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI NAGARAJU
   S/O MUNISWAMI @
   MUNISHAMI @ CHINNAPPA,
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
   NO.1115,
   NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
   BEGUR,
   BENGALURU CITY - 560 068.
   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;

 SMT.SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS, 2023 PRAYING

TO QUASHING THE FIR IN CR.NO.122/2025, REGISTERED
BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (BEGUR P.S) FOR THE
O/P/U/S 3(2)(V), 3(1)(g) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT-1989
AND SEC.115(2), 138, 190, 304(2), 310(2), 324(5),
331(4), 351(3) AND 352 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, CCH-
71 AT BANGALORE.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:13573
CRL.P No. 7805 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 7679 of 2025

HC-KAR

  THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                     ORAL ORDER The petitioners, in these cases, call in question a solitary

crime that is registered in Crime No. 122 of 2025 for offences

punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(g) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for

short) and Sections 115(2), 138, 190, 304(2), 310(2), 324(5),

331(4), 351(3) and 352 of BNS, 2023.

1. Heard Sri Kiran S Javali, learned senior counsel

appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.7805 of 2025 and Sri

Sandesh J Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for

petitioner in Crl.P.No.7679 of 2025, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1

and Smt Suman Hegde, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2.

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

1. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

3.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The

petitioners in these cases are accused Nos.1 and 2. A complaint

comes to be registered on 29-05-2025 alleging several offences

against these accused. The complaint then becomes a crime in

Crime No. 122 of 2025. Barely within a week, the subject

petitions are filed. The crime is interdicted by grant of an

interim order of stay at the hands of the co-ordinate Bench.
The application seeking vacation of the interim order is

preferred by the State and the 2nd respondent/complainant.

The matter is heard at that stage.

3.2. It is the case of the complainant that, on

29-05-2025, several persons, including the accused, along with

certain henchmen barged into the property of the complainant,

kidnapped, thieved and assaulted the complainant apart from

trespassing into his property. The backdrop to the said

registration of the crime is a claim over the property. The

property is the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.2150 of

2007 filed by the father of the complainant. The suit is

instituted seeking relief of declaration and possession. The suit

                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

comes to be rejected. The rejection of the suit is challenged in

the year 2025 before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and

the matter is pending in RFA No.2119 of 2025.

3.3. Contemporaneously, while filing the Regular First

Appeal before this Court, the complainant has also set the

criminal law into motion, not on the pendency of the said

proceeding or on the same cause of action, but on the several

other offences as indicated hereinabove. The registration of the

crime against the accused is what has driven the accused to

this Court in these subject petitions.

1. The learned senior counsels Sri Kiran S Javali and

Sri Sandesh J Chouta appearing for the petitioners in these

cases would in unison contend that, the matter which is purely

civil in nature is sought to be projected to become a crime, as

the father of the complainant who was plaintiff in the aforesaid

suit O.S.No.2150 of 2007 has lost the suit and after losing the

suit, his son has set the criminal law into motion, now on the

ground that the petitioners have trespassed into the property of

the complainant. The complainant is not even in possession of

                                        NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

the property and if the complainant is not in possession of the

property, it would not become the offence of criminal trespass.

1. The learned senior counsel Sri Kiran S Javali would

submit that Sy No. 352 is not even in existence, for which they

claim that phodi has been done and now numbered as

Sy.No.352/2 to 325/7. Therefore, the claim of the complainant

is completely contrary to the record. If the complainant is not

in possession of the property, the crime itself could not have

been registered against these petitioners is what is urged

before the Court.

6.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent complainant and the 1st respondent/State would

in unison submit that the issue is not with regard to the civil

suit being given a colour of crime or a civil proceedings being

given a colour of crime. The complainant was in possession of

the property. The possession is determined by the jurisdictional

Tahsildar as well, who places a report on conducting an

inspection. In the light of the said possession, the petitioners

and their henchmen, totally about 500 people, have barged into

the property and destroyed several structures that were

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

existing in the property and kidnapped and abducted a

particular person as well. It is on this basis, the crime comes to

be registered. Therefore, the fact of possession or otherwise

would go into the oblivion, in the light of the other offences of

theft and abduction being projected against these petitioners.

6.2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits

that the crime is registered 7 days prior to the grant of the

interim order. No investigation worth the name is even

conducted where there are a plethora of allegations against the

petitioners, apart from hurling of abuses which could become

the ingredients of the Act.

1. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J Chouta would

join issue contending that the crime itself could not have been

registered by the police, as the petitioners were in possession.

They are bona fide purchasers and the purchaser has entered

into a joint development agreement with the petitioner in the

companion petition. The issue is, on the face of it, civil in

nature and therefore, the complaint could not have been

registered and this Court must not permit investigation to be

continued in a seemingly civil dispute between the parties.

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

1. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned senior counsels and the

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have

perused the material on record.

1. A little walk in the history to consider the issue that is

now projected becomes imperative. A suit comes to be filed by

the father of the complainant in OS No.2150 of 2007. The Civil

Court frames the following issues and additional issues thereon.

They read as follows:

".... .... ....

1. On the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following;

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the
   absolute owner in possession of the suit
   schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
   Judgment and Decree passed in
   OS.No.76/1979 in respect of the suit
   schedule property is not binding on him?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
   defendants are trying to interfere with his
   peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
   suit schedule property ?

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?

Addl. Issues:

1. Whether the 6th defendant proves that he is
   the bonafide purchaser of a portion of the
   suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of
   necessary parties?

3. Whether the suit is not properly valued ?

4. Whether the suit is hopelessly barred by
   limitation?

5. What order or decree ?"

One of the additional issues that was framed by the Concerned

Court was, whether the 6th defendant, who is the petitioner in

Crl.P.No.7679 of 2025, would prove that he is the bona fide

purchaser of a portion of the suit schedule property. The said

issue is answered in the negative, notwithstanding the fact that

the entire suit itself is negated by the concerned Court, thereby

observing that the plaintiff does not prove that he is the

absolute owner in possession of the scheduled property.

Therefore, the possession itself is in doubt. At paragraph No.21

an observation is made as to who is the bona fide purchaser

and it reads as follows:

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

"21. Plaintiff contended that defendants are trying
to interfere with his possession but to prove his
possession not even a scrape of paper produced to show
his possession over the suit schedule property as on the
date of suit. When the documents produced by
himself clearly establishes the possession of
defendant No.1, such being the thing, the alleged
interference as contended by plaintiff holds no
water in the eye of law and it is settled law that
interference need not be physical even by
contesting the case by filing Written statement
itself is sufficient but in the present case on hand
plaintiff failed to prove neither his title nor
possession. On the other hand, defendants have
successfully rebutted the case of plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff
not entitled for the relief as sought for. Hence, I answer
all issues in the negative."
(Emphasis added)

At paragraph 21, as observed hereinabove, it is mentioned as

to who is in possession of the property. The suit is dismissed in

the year 2019. Nothing happens thereafter.

1. It transpires that the petitioners have entered into

certain further transactions when disturbance ensued and the

complainant registers a crime which becomes the fulcrum of

Criminal Petition No.11495 of 2024, wherein this Court grants

an interim order of stay of further investigation in Crime

No.329 of 2024. The subject petitions do not concern the said

crime. After the aforesaid proceeding, alleging that the incident

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

on 29-05-2025, would become the ingredients of all the

offences alleged, the crime was registered by the

2nd respondent/complainant. The subject complaint reads as

follows:

" ೆಂಗಳ ರು
29.05.2025
ರವ ೆ
ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು,
ೇಗೂರು ಆರ ಕ ಾ ೆ.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು 560068

 ರವ ಂದ
  ಾಗ ಾಜು        ಮು    ಾ     @ ಮು !ಾ      @ "ನ$ಪ&,
 ವಯಸು) ಸು*ಾರು 31 ವರುಷ
 ನಂ.1115, ಆಂಜ ೇಯ     ಾ    ,ೇವ ಾ-ನದ ಹ/0ರ,
  ೇಗೂರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು, 560068 1ಾ/ *ಾ2ಗ
 8197771661 / ಾಗ ಾಜು
 Nagarajnaga 78583@gmail.com

 *ಾನ3 ೇ

 4ಷಯ :- 2 ಾಂಕ 28.05.2025ರ        ಾ/5 ಸು*ಾರು 12:30 ಗಂ6ೆ ೆ     ೇಗೂರು    ಾ5ಮದ
 ಸ7ೇ ಸಂ8ೆ3: 352ರ9:        ;ಸ<ಾ=ದ> ?5ೕ   ೇಣುAಾ Bಲ:ಮD ,ೇವ ಾ-ನ, ?5ೕ !ಾಂ/

ಮು ೇಶ ರ ,ೇವ ಾ-ನ, Fಾಗೂ ನಮD ಮ ೆಯನು$ ಸಂಪGಣ;7ಾ= ಧIಂಸ ೊJK ನನ$
ತಮD ಾದ Bಲಪ& Fಾಗೂ ವರುM ಅ9OಾP ಅQ& ನನು$ ಬಲವಂತ7ಾ= STಾ$U
ಾVರುವ ಬ ೆW, ,ೇವ ಾ-ನದ9: ಇದ>ಂತಹ Bಲ:ಮD ,ೇ4ಯ Fಾಗೂ ?5ೕ !ಾಂ/
ಮು ೇಶ ರನ ಕ9:ನ ಮೂ/;ಗಳY, Bಲ:ಮD ,ೇ4ಯ ಉತ)ವ ಮೂ/;, ,ೇ4ಯ
ಅಲಂAಾರದ ಸುಾರು 50 ಾ5 ನ ಬಂ ಾರದ ಒಡ7ೆಗಳY, ಮ ೆಯ9:ದ> ಾ*ಾನು
ಸರಂ1ಾಮು, <ಾU6ಾU, ಬ]ೕ^_5` ಾಧನಗಳY, ನೂ ಾರು AೋJಗಳನು$
ಕ,ೊ>a>ರುವ ಬ ೆW, Fಾಗೂ ಹಲವb 7ಾಹನಗಳನು$ ಜಕಂ ೊJK ನಮD ಕುಟುಂಬದ
ಹಲವರ ^ೕ<ೆ ಹ<ೆ: *ಾV d ೈfಗಳನು$ ಕKದುAೊಂVರುವ ಬ ೆW, ದೂರು.

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

^ೕಲgಂಡ 4ಷಯAೆg ಸಂಬಂhKದಂiೆ ೇಗೂರು ಾ5ಮದ ಸ7ೆ; ನಂ.352ರ9:
ನಂ ರ9:
ಜ ೕನು Qiಾ5j;ತ7ಾ= ನಮD ಕುಟುಂಬAೆg ೇ ದ ಸ iಾ0=ದು> Fಾಗೂ ನಮD
ಾ hೕ ಾನುಭವದ9:ರುವ ಸ ತ0ನು$ ನ Dಂದ Aಾನೂರು ಾlರ7ಾ= ಕKದುAೊಳYmವ
Fಾಗೂ ಆಕ5 ಸುವ ಉ,ೆ>ೕಶ2ಂದ ಎo.ಆ
ಎo ಆp.ರ4ಚಂದ5
ರ4ಚಂದ5 <ೇ||
<ೇ ಾಜ!ೇಖರ ೆVs,
Fಾಗೂ tೆ5Kuೕv ಏಕP; tೆx7ೇy 9 6ೆz ಕಂಪ ಯ ಎAೆ)ಕು3ೕ{ Tೈ ೆಕup ಆ=ರುವ
ನaೕ| ನೂp ಒಳಸಂಚು ನTೆK ಸ ಸುಾರು 400 ಂದ-500
ಂದ ಜನ ಾV ೆ Fೆಣು}
Fಾಗೂ ಗಂಡು ಗೂಂTಾಗಳನು$ ಕ ೆaK ನಮD ಮ ೆ ೆ ಾ=ಲು ಒTೆದು ಒಳನು=W ಮಲ=ದ>
ನನ$,
ನನ$ ನನ$ ತಂ,ೆ,
ತಂ,ೆ ನನ$ ತಮD Bಲ:ಪ&,& ನನ$ ೋದರ ಸಂಬಂhOಾದ ವರುM @ ಅQ&
Fಾಗೂ ನನ$ ಅಕgನ ಮಗ ಇಂದ5jೕ~ ರವರುಗಳ ^ೕ<ೆ ಎರ= ನಮDನು$ ಹಲವರು
lV2ಟುuAೊಂVರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ ನನ$ ತಮD Bಲ:ಪ& ಮತು0 ವರುMನನು$
ವರುMನನು$ ಒಂದು Aಾ ನ9: tಾ5ಣ
ೆದ Aೆ FಾS ಬಲವಂತ7ಾ= STಾ$U *ಾVAೊಂಡು ಕ ೆ,ೊa>
ೆ,ೊ a>ರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ ನಮD ಮ ೆಯ
ಬJ ಜಾaKದ> ಗೂಂ•ಾಗಳY ಸುಾರು 4-5 1ೆK , €ೕ<ೈ
€ೕ<ೈ ಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ನಮD
ಮ ೆ Fಾಗೂ ಮ ೆಯ ಆವರಣದ9:Bೕ ಇದ> ?5ೕ ೇಣುAಾ ಯಲ:ಮD ,ೇವ ಾ-ನ, ?5ೕ
!ಾಂ/ ಮು ೇಶ ರ ,ೇವ ಾ-ನಗಳನು$ ಒTೆದು Fಾಕಲು ಮುಂ,ಾ=ರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ ಈತನD‚ೆ3 ನನ$
ಅಕgನ ಮಗ ಾದ ಇಂದ5jೕ~ ಸ ೕಪದ9:B ಇದ> Aಾ<ೋ ಯ9:ರುವ ನಮD
ಸFೋದರ/ಸFೋದ ಯ ೆ ಸದ 4ƒಾರವನು$ /JKರುiಾ0 ೆ. 4ಷಯ /Jದ ಕೂಡ<ೆ
ನನ$ ಅಕgನ ಮಗ !ಾಂತಕುಾp „ೕ9P ಕಂ6ೊ5ೕf ರೂ| ನ ಸಂ8ೆ3: 112Aೆg ಕ ೆ
ಾV ಸದ 4ƒಾರವನು$ /JK ರ ೆಯನು$ Aೋ ರುiಾ0 ೆ. !ಾಂತಕುಾpರವರು
ಸದ ಜ ೕ ನ ಕಬJAೆಯ 4ƒಾರದ9: ನಮD ಪರ7ಾ= ಂ/ರುವ ಜ ಾhAಾರ
ಸಂಘಷ; ಪ ಷ/0ನ Fಾಗೂ Tಾ|| .ಆp. ಅಂ ೇಡgp ದಂಡು ಸಂಘಟ ೆಯ ಸದಸ3 ಾದ
ಪ5Aಾ† ಾಬುರವ ೆ ಕ ೆ ಾVದು> ಅವರೂ ಸಹ „ೕ9P ಕಂ6ೊ5ೕf ರೂ|ನ
ಸಂ8ೆ3: 112Aೆg ಕ ೆ *ಾV ಸದ ಕುಟುಂಬAೆg ಅವರ ಆK0tಾK0ಯ ರ ೆ *ಾಡ ೇAೆಂದು
Aೋ ರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಅದರಂiೆ ಸ-ಳAೆg ‚ಾ4Kದ Fೊಯ)ಳ 7ಾಹನದ9: ಬಂದ ಆರ ಕ ಅhAಾ
Fಾಗೂ Kಬ‡ಂ2ಯು ಸದ ಗೂಂTಾಗಳY ಕಟuಡ Aೆಡವbವbದನು$ ತTೆ2ರುವb2ಲ:. ನಂತರ
ಜ ಾhAಾರ ಸಂಘಷ; ಪ ಷ/0ನ Fಾಗೂ Tಾ|| .ಆp. ಅಂ ೇಡgp ದಂಡು ಸಂಘಟ ೆಯ
ಸದಸ3 ಾದ ಆದ†; ಅಯ3pರವರು ೇಗೂರು ಾ ೆಯ ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕ ಾದ
ಕೃಷ}ಕುಾpರವ ೆ ದೂರ7ಾ‰ ಕ ೆ *ಾV ನಮD ಕುಟುಂಬAೆg ರ ೆ ೕಡುವಂiೆ
Aೋ ರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಆಗ ಸದ ಯವರು ಸ ೕಪದ9:Bೕ ಇರುವ ಮiೊ0ಂದು Fೊಯ)ಳ
7ಾಹನವನು$ ಕಳYlKAೊಡುವb,ಾ= /JK,ಾ> ೆ. Fಾಗೂ ಕಳYlKAೊuರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ೨
Fೊಯ)ಳ 7ಾಹನಗಳ9: ಬಂದ ಆರ ಕ Kಬ‡ಂ2ಗಳY Oಾವb,ೇ ೕ/ಯ9: ನಮD Fಾಗೂ
ನಮD ಆK0tಾK0ಯ ರ ೆಯನು$ ಾಡಲು Sಂ"ತು0 ಪ5ಯತ$ *ಾVರುವb2ಲ:. ಇ,ೇ
4ƒಾರವನು$ ಆದ†; ಅಯ3pರವರು ಮiೆ0 ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕ ೆ ಕ ೆ *ಾV 4ƒಾರ
/JKದು> ಅವರು ಾ/5 ಗK0ನ9:,ೆ>ೕ ೆ, ಾ ೇ ಖು,ಾ>= ಅ9: ೆ ಬರುiೆ0ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು
/JKರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಸುಾರು ಾನೂರ ಂದ ಐನೂರು ಜನ ಗೂಂTಾಗಳY ,ಾJ ನTೆK,

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

ಆK0tಾK0 ೆ ಗಂŒೕರ7ಾದ Fಾ ಾಡು/0ದು> ಇಬ‡ರು ವ3S0ಗಳನು$ ಅಪಹ Kರುವ
4ƒಾರವನು$ /JKದ>ರೂ ಸಹ ಸದ ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು ಸದ ಘಟ ಾ ಸ-ಳAೆg ‚ಾ4ಸಲು
ಸುಾರು ಒಂದುವ ೆ ಗಂ6ೆಗಳ ನಂತರ ಘಟ ಾ ಸ-ಳAೆg ಆಗ Kರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಅಷuರ<ಾ:ಗ<ೇ
ಎo.ಆp.ರ4ಚಂದ5 Fಾಗೂ ನaೕ| ನೂpನ ಗೂಂTಾಗಳY ನಮD ಮ ೆ Fಾಗೂ
,ೇವ ಾ-ನವನು$ ಸಂಪGಣ;7ಾ= Aೆಡ4 FಾS ಸದ ಕಟuಡದ ಪ•ೆಯುJAೆಯನು$ 1ೆK ಗಳ
ಮೂಲಕ ಸ ೕಪದ9:Bೕ ಅವರ ಾ hೕನದ9:ರುವ ಜ ೕ ೊಳ ೆ FಾSರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಕಟuಡ
Aೆಡವb7ಾಗ ತTೆಯಲು ಮುಂ,ಾದ ನಮD ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದPಯರ ^ೕ<ೆ ಹ<ೆ:

*ಾVರುiಾ0 ೆ Fಾಗೂ tಾ5ಣ ೆದ Aೆ FಾSರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಸದ ಯವರು ನಮD
ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು$ ಕು ತು ನಮD Aೆಲಸವನು$ *ಾಡಲು V, ಇಲ:7ಾದ ೆ ಮDನು$
Aೊಲು:iೆ0ೕ7ೆ ಎಂದು ೆದ Aೆ FಾSರುiಾ0 ೆ

ನಮD ಸFಾಯAೆg ಎಂದು Fೊಯ)ಳ 7ಾಹನದ9: ‚ಾ4Kದ ಆರ ಕರು Fಾಗು ಅರ ಕ
ೕ ಕ ಾಗ9ೕ ನಮD ಮ ೆ Fಾಗೂ ,ೇವ ಾ-ನವನು$ ಉJಸಲು Sಂ"ತು0 ಪbಯತ$
*ಾVರುವb2ಲ:. ,ೇವ ಾ-ನದ 4ಗ5ಹಗಳನು$, ,ೇವರ ಒಡ7ೆಗಳನು$ Fಾಗೂ ಹಲವb
ೆ<ೆ ಾಳYವ ವಸು0ಗಳನು$ ಸದ ಯವರು ದ ೋTೆ *ಾVರುವbದನು$ Fಾಗೂ ನಮD
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಇಬ‡ರು ವ3S0ಗಳನು$ ಅಪಹ K,ಾ> ೆ. ಅವರ tಾ5ಣAೆg ಆತಂಕ4,ೆ ಎಂದು
/JKದರೂ ಸಹ ಅರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು ಸದ ಸ /0 ೆ ಸಂಬಂhKದ ,ಾಖ<ಾ/ಗಳನು$
ಸ9:ಸುವಂiೆ ಸೂ"Kರುiಾ0 ೆ. ನಮD ರ ೆ *ಾಡುವbದು ಅವ ೆ tಾ5ಮುಖ3iೆ ಇರುವಂiೆ
ಕಂಡುಬರುವb2ಲ:. ನನ$ ೋದರ Fಾಗೂ ವರುಣ @ ಅQ&ಯನು$ ಅವರುಗJ ೆ ಏ ಾದರೂ
iೊಂದ ೆOಾದ ೆ ಾವb ಸುಮD ರುವb2ಲ: ಎಂದು ಆರ`ಷಕ ೕ ಕ ೆ ಗಂŒೕರ7ಾ=
ಎಚŽ Kದ ನಂತರ Aೆಲ7ೇ ಷಗಳ9: ಅವ ಬ‡ರನೂ$ ಅಪಹರಣAಾರರು ಆರ ಕ ಾ ೆಯ
lಂಬ2ಯ9: ಟುu ಪ ಾ Oಾ=ರುiಾ0 ೆ. ನನ$ ೋದರ Fಾಗೂ ವರುಣ @ ಅQ&ಯ
FೇJAೆಯಂiೆ ಅಪಹರಣAಾರ ೆ Oಾ ೋ ಅ ಾಮ‚ೇಯರು ಕ ೆ *ಾV ಈ ಕೂಡ<ೆ
ಅವರನು$ ಟುu ಡ ೇAೆಂದು /JKದ Aಾರಣ2ಂದ ನಮDನು$ ಟುu ಟuರು ಎಂದು
/JKರುiಾ0 ೆ. ಅಂದ ೆ ಾವb ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕ ೆ ಒತ0ಡ Fೇ ದ ಕೂಡ<ೇ
ಅಪಹರಣAಾರ ೆ ಕ ೆ *ಾVರುವbದು ಗಂŒೕರ 4ƒಾರ7ಾ=ದು> ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು ಸದ
ಎo.ಆp
ಎo ಆp.ರ4ಚಂದ5
ಆp ರ4ಚಂದ5 Fಾಗೂ ನaೕ| ನೂp 1ೊiೆಯ9: !ಾ ೕ<ಾ=ರುವಂiೆ ಕಂಡು
ಬರುತ0,ೆ.ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆದಂiೆ ಆರ ಕ ಾ ೆಯ ಬJ ೆ ಬಂದ ಇಬ‡ರು ,ಾJAೋರ
ಗೂಂTಾಗಳನು$ ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು ಸದ ಆ ಾ ಗಳನು$ Oಾ ೆಂದು Fಾಗೂ ಾ ೆ ೆ ಈ
ಸ ಾ/5ಯ9: ಏತAೆg ಬಂ2 ಎಂದು ಸಹ 4ƒಾ ಸ,ೇ Fಾ ೆBೕ lಂ2ರುಗುವಂiೆ ಸ ೆ$
*ಾVರುವಂiೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ2ರುತ0,ೆ.ೆ ,ಾJAೋರ ಗೂಂTಾಗ
ಗೂಂTಾಗಳನು$ ಾವb ಗುರು/K
ಇವರುಗ•ೇ ನಮD ಆK0tಾK0ಗಳನು$ ಧIಂಸ *ಾVದು> ಎಂಬು,ಾ= ಅ9:Bೕ ಇದ> ಅನ3
ಆರ ಕ ೆ /JK ಾವbಗ•ೇ ಅವರನು$ ಬಂhಸುವಂiೆ ಒiಾ0aKದ ನಂತರ7ೇ ಅವರನು$
ಾಮAಾವ ೆ- ೆ ಸುಪ2; ೆ ಪTೆ2ರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಎ<ಾ: ಘಟ ೆಗಳY ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕ ಾದ

• 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

 ಕೃಷ}ಕು*ಾpರವರು
      ು*ಾpರವರು       ಆ ೋQತ     ರ4ಚಂದ5      Fಾಗೂ     ನaೕಂ        ನೂp
                                                                  ನೂp     1ೊiೆ
 !ಾ ೕ<ಾ=ರುವbದು ಾ ೕiಾಗುತ0,ೆ.ೆ

 ,ಾJAೋರ ಗೂಂTಾಗಳY ನಮD ಮ ೆಯ            ೕರು4ನ9:,ೆ.ೆ ,ೇವರ ಒಡ7ೆಗಳನು$ ದ ೋTೆ
 *ಾV,ೆ>ೕ ಅಲ:,ೆ ನಮD ಮ ೆಯ ಆವರಣದ9: ¤°è¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ ನಮD               ೆ$ೕlತ    ಾಬುರವರ
 ಪ/$ಯವ ಾದ         ಾಗರತ$ ಎ ರವರ Fೆಸ ದ9:        ೋಂದ‰AiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ Aಾ ನ     ೋಂದ‰
 ಸಂ8ೆ3:

ಸಂ8ೆ3: Aೆಎ 01 ಎ| ಡಬು:' 9002 *ಾರು/ J¸ÉÖç¸ÉÆì Aಾರನು$ Fಾಗೂ Aೆಎ 51 Fೆo1ೆ 7927
ನಂಬ ನ FೋಂTಾ V] ಾVಗಳನು$ ಧIಂಸ ೊJKರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ. ಸದ ,ಾJAೋರರ
ಕೃತ3ವನು$ 4ೕV]ೕ *ಾಡಲು ಪ5ಯ/$Kದ ನಮD d ೈf €ೕ ಗಳನು$
ಕKದುAೊಂVರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ. Fಾಗೂ ಅವbಗಳ9: Aೆಲವನು$ ಜಕಂ ೊJKರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ. ನನ$ ಅಣ}
ಮು ಾಜುರವ ೆ FೊTೆದು d ೈಲನು$ ಕKದುAೊಂVದು> ಈವ ೆಗೂ ಅದು ನಮ ೆ ಮರJ
KSgರುವb2ಲ:. ನಮD ಮ ೆಯ ಆವರಣ,
ಆವರಣ, ,ೇವ ಾ-ನ, iೆಂಗು,
iೆಂಗು, ಹಲKನ ಮರಗಳY,
ಮರಗಳY, 1ೋಳದ
ಸKಗಳY ಎಲ:ವನು$ ಧIಂಸ *ಾVರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು ಾವb ಾSದ> ನೂ ಾರು
AೋJಗಳನು$ ಸಹ ದ ೋTೆ *ಾVರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ.

ಸದ ಯವರ ಈ ಎ<ಾ: ಕೃತ3ಗಳY ಪ ?ಷu 1ಾ/ ಮತು0 ಪಂಗಡ ,ೌಜ;ನ3 ತTೆ AಾB>ಯ
ಕಲಂ 3(1) (j

(j), 3(2)(v
)(v) Fಾಗೂ žಾರ/ೕಯ ಾ3ಯ ಸಂlತ,
ಸಂlತ, 2023ರ
2023ರ ಕಲಂ 331(
331(4), 137
Fಾಗೂ ಇ $ತರ ಸಂ ೆಯ ಅಪ ಾಧಗ•ಾ=,ೆ.
ಾಧಗ•ಾ=,ೆ. ಆದ Aಾರಣ ?ೕ¡5/?ೕಘ¢5 ಸದ ಯವರ
4ರುದ£ ಸೂಕ0 Aಾನೂನು ಕ5ಮವನು$ ಜರು=ಸ ೇAೆಂದು Fಾಗು ನಮ ೆ ನಮD ಜ ೕ ನ
ಾ hೕ ಾನುಭವವನು$ ಪTೆದುAೊಳmಲು ರ ೆ ಒದ=ಸ ೇAೆಂದು Aೋ ಈ ದೂರನು$
ಸ9:ಸು/0,ೆ>ೕ7ೆ.

7ೆ. ಾ/5Bೕ ಘಟ ೆ ನTೆ2ದ>ರೂ ಸಹ liೈ¤ಗ•ೆ ಂ2 ೆ ಸಾ<ೋ"K
ದೂರು Kದ£ಪVKAೊಂಡು ಬರಲು ತಡ7ಾದ Aಾರಣ ಮ‚ಾ3ಹ$ ಸುಾರು 2 : 50 Aೆg ದೂರು
ದೂರು
ಸ9:Kರುiೆ0ೕ7ೆ ಆ ೋQತ ಾದ ಎoಆp ರ4ಚಂದ5 Fಾಗೂ
Fಾಗೂ ನaೕಂ ನೂp
ನೂp ಾಗ ಾಜು ೆVs
Fಾಗೂ ಮುK:ಮರ ಜ ಾಂಗAೆg ೇ ರುiಾ0 ೆ

 ದೂರು,ಾರರ ಸl

     ಸl/-            ಸl/-          ಸl/-                ಸl/-           ಸl/-

( ಾಗ ಾಜು) (ಮು ಾಜು) (ಮು ಕೃಷ}) (ಮಂಜು ಾಥ) (Bಲ:ಪ&)"

(Emphasis added)

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

This becomes a crime in Crime No. 122 of 2025, for a plethora

of offences. The issue now would be, whether on the score that

the father of the complainant has lost the civil suit in

O.S. No.2150 of 2007, the complainant should be permitted to

register the complaint or the State Agency should be permitted

to continue with the investigation.
11. As observed hereinabove, the crime is registered on

29-05-2025 and the interim order, in favour of the petitioners

is granted on 06-06-2025 and 10-06-2025 respectively, seven

to ten days after the registration of the crime. Therefore, the

petitions are preferred even before the ink on the crime could

dry. The allegation is not limited to the trespass. The offences

are the ones punishable under Section 138 of the BNS which is

abduction, 190 of the BNS which is unlawful assembly, 304 of

the BNS which is snatching, 324 and 331 of the BNS being

mischief and trespass respectively, and Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v) of the Act for wrongful dispossession of a member of

the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for his land or

premises knowing that such person belongs to a Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, it is an amalgam of

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

several offences against the petitioners and not only that of

trespass. If the entire issue was relating only to the offence of

427 or 447 of the earlier regime, the IPC, which is mischief and

criminal trespass respectively, it would have been altogether a

different circumstance. The crime being too nascent, this Court

would not lend its protective hands to the petitioners without

investigation.

1. What is projected is, that the dispute between the

parties is purely civil in nature and therefore, the crime cannot

spring. It is trite law that merely because a proceeding projects

it to be a civil dispute, the criminal proceedings cannot be set

aside. Both civil and criminal law, in certain circumstances, can

contemporaneously go on is the settled principle of law, which

is too well settled by the Apex Court in a plethora of

judgments.

12.1. The Apex Court in [ROCKY v. STATE OF

TELANGANA1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158338248/) has held as follows:

".... ..... ....

1. The appellant's core contention, that the
   dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this

   2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

     stage. Although courts must guard against giving
     criminal colour to civil disputes, it is equally well
     settled that the existence of civil remedies does not
     preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations
     disclose the essential ingredients of an offence. Civil
     and criminal proceedings may validly coexist if the
     factual matrix supports both."

12.2. The Apex Court in ANURAG BHATNAGAR v.

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)2 has held as follows:

".... ..... ....

1. The allegations in the application moved
   under Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in
   support thereof reveals that SHL is contending
   breach of the conditions of MoU dated 11.03.1995
   and that it has been induced and deceived by VLS for
   entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS has cheated SHL
   and its officers by making a false promise which was
   legally impossible to be carried out. The allegations
   of breach of conditions of the MoU or of making a
   false promise by itself may not give rise to any
   criminal action as no criminality is attached to it.
   However, there are elements of inducement, criminal
   conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out
   from the allegations made in the application and the
   complaint, which if proved, may amount to
   commission of an offence. Therefore, once such
   allegations are made out, it is difficult for the court in
   exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with
   the FIR, only for the reason that some of the disputes
   are of civil nature which may or may not be having
   any criminality attached to it.

2. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
   Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
   Singh, that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent
   stage has to be exercised with great caution and
   circumspection. In this connection, it would be beneficial to

   2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514

• 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

     refer to an old case of Privy Council in [King
     Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1708066/) wherein the law was well
     settled that the courts would not thwart any investigation
     or that the courts should be very slow in interfering with
     the process of investigation. It is only in rare cases where
     no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that the court
     may stop the investigation so as to avoid the harassment of
     the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of power, the
     court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the genuineness
     or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
     complaint which have to be examined only after the
     evidence is collected.

1. The breach of conditions of the MoU or
   allegations of false promises in relation to the
   aforesaid MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the
   different FIRs lodged by VLS itself. Therefore,
   violation of those conditions for some reasons have
   been considered by VLS to be offensive. Therefore,
   the High Court rightly held that if breach of those
   conditions of the MoU itself has been considered to
   be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot be permitted
   to turn around and allege that such breach of
   conditions would be of pure civil nature.

2. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we
   do not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of
   disputes involved in the FIR and leave the same to be
   adjudicated upon by the appropriate court where the
   chargesheets have been submitted."

12.3. In KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY3 the

Apex Court has held as follows:

".... .... ....

1. We now come to the issue of bar against
   prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We
   hereby hold that no such bar exists against
   prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal

   2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428

• 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

 law are made out against the parties to the civil suit.
 Learned senior counsel Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly
 placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above
 submission. In the case of [K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar
 G.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8051415/) [S.3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157412304/), this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify
 the position. The relevant paragraph from the above
 judgment is extracted below:

"8. It is thus well settled that in certain
cases the very same set of facts may give rise to
remedies in civil as well as in criminal
proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed
by a party, he is not precluded from setting in
motion the proceedings in criminal law."
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar4, this Court
summed up the distinction between the two remedies as
under:

"21. ... There are a large number of cases
where criminal law and civil law can run side by
side. The two remedies are not mutually
exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially
differ in their content and consequence. The
object of the criminal law is to punish an
offender who commits an offence against a
person, property or the State for which the
accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of
his liberty and in some cases even his life. This
does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for
suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc.
It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy
is available, a criminal prosecution is completely
barred. The two types of actions are quite different in
content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to
us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly
misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife,
though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution
under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that
because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the
custody of her husband, no action against him can be
taken as no offence is committed is to override and
distort the real intent of the law."

1. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B.,

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

               "17. In view of the preponderance of authorities
       to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court
       was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated
       by the appellant against the respondents. We are also
       not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit
       was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not
       justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law
       or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to
       be proceeded with in accordance with the
       procedure as prescribed under the [Code of
       Criminal Procedure](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/) and the pendency of a civil
       action in a different court even though higher in
       status and authority, cannot be made a basis for
       quashing of the proceedings."

1. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this
   Court in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High
   Court to quash the criminal proceedings and held that
   criminal proceedings shall continue to its logical end.

2. The above precedents set by this Court
   make it crystal clear that pendency of civil
   proceedings on the same subject matter, involving
   the same parties is no justification to quash the
   criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists
   against the accused persons. In present case
   certainly such prima facie case exists against the
   respondents. Considering the long chain of events
   from creation of family tree excluding the daughters
   of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only
   the sons and grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy,
   distribution of compensation award among the
   respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was
   active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits
   from the land in question. Further, the alleged threat
   to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the
   above chain of events further affirms the motive of
   respondents. All the above factors suggest that a
   criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the
   appellant."

• 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

     12.4. In [PUNIT     BERIWALA         v.   STATE   (NCT       OF

DELHI](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78386474/))4 the Apex Court holds as follows:

"... .... ....

MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT
AS A BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES

1. It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court in various judgments, has held that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686]".

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

1. In view of the afore-quoted judgments, the criminal

culpability and civil wrong can be the two sides of the same

coin insofar as the investigation is concerned, more so in the

light of the fact that the jurisdictional Tahsildar has inspected

the property and has rendered a report that the family of

complainant is residing in Sy.No.352/5 of the suit schedule

property. The report of the Tahsildar reads as follows:

2025 SCC OnLine SC 983

• 23 - NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

      "ಉಪತಹ?ೕ<ಾ>
       ಉಪತಹ?ೕ<ಾ>p ರವರAಾOಾ;ಲಯ,
                  ರವರAಾOಾ;ಲಯ ಾಡಕ©ೇ                   ೇಗೂರು,
                                                      ೇಗೂರು ೇಗೂರು FೋಬJ,
                                                                    FೋಬJ

ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದªಣiಾಲೂ:ಕು ೆಂಗಳ ರು -560068
ಎ ಎV/ ೇ/ಎಂಎPK/Kಆp 88/2025-26 2 ಾಂಕ:04/06/2025

(ಲಗತು0 ಕಡತಕ5 ಸಂ 1 ಂರವ ೆ ೆ)

ೆ,
ತಹ?ೕ<ಾ>p ರವ ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದªಣ iಾಲೂ:ಕು
ೆಂಗಳ ರು

4ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದªಣ iಾಲೂ:ಕು ೇಗೂರು FೋಬJ, ೇಗೂರು ಾ5ಮದ
ಸ.ನಂ 352/5 Fಾಗೂ 352/6 ರ ಜ ೕ ನ9: ನTೆದ ಸ-ಳAೆg ೇ_ ೕV
ಸ-ಳವನು$ ಪ ?ೕ9K ವರ2 ೕಡಲು Aೋ ಸFಾಯಕ „9ೕP
ಆಯುಕ0ರು ಎ<ೆAಾ« ` K_ ಉಪ4žಾಗ ೆಂಗಲೂರು ರವರ ಮನ4

ಉ<ೆ:ೕಖ: 1)*ಾನ3 ಸFಾಯಕ „9ೕP ಆಯುತ ಕ©ೇ ಎ<ೆAಾ« K_
ಉಪ4žಾಗ, ರವರ ಪತ5ದ ಸಂ8ೆ3
©.f.¦.J¸ï/¦J¸ï/ªÉƸÀA 122/2025- 2:30/05/2025

1)*ಾನ3 ತಹ?ೕ<ಾ>p ರವರ ಕ©ೇ ಾಪನ ಪತ5ದ ಸಂ8ೆ3 ಎಂ ಎP
K/K ಆp 122/2025-26 2 ಾಂಕ:30/05/2025

2) ಾಜಸ ೕ ಕರ ವರ2 ಸಂ8ೆ3 ಾ. ( ೇ) Qಆp 33/2025-26

^ೕಲgಂಡ 4ಷಯAೆg ಸಂಬಂ2Kದಂiೆ, ಉ<ೆ:ೕಖ (1) ರನ ಯ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದªಣ
iಾಲೂ:ಕು ೇಗೂರು FೋಬJ, ೇಗೂರು ಾ5ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ 352/5 Fಾಗೂ 352/6 ರ
ಜ ೕ ನ9: ನTೆದ ಸ-ಳAೆg ೇ_ ೕV ಸ-ಳವನು$ ಪ ?ೕ9K ವರ2 ೕಡಲು Aೋ
ಸFಾಯಕ „9ೕP ಆಯುಕ0ರು ಎ<ೆAಾ« ` K_ ಉಪ4žಾಗ ರವರು Aೋ ರುವ ಬ ೆW
ಉ<ೆ:ೕಖ (2) ರ ಪತ5ದ9: ಸೂ"Kರುವಂiೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟu ಾಜಸ ೕ ಕ ಂದ ಉ<ೆ:ೕಖ (3)
ರಂiೆ ವರ2 ಪTೆದು ಪ ?ೕ9ಸ<ಾ=,

ೇಗೂರು FೋಬJ,
FೋಬJ ೇಗೂರು ಾ5ಮದ ಸ.ನ
ನ 352 ರ ಜ ೕನು ಮೂಲತಃ
ಇ ಾಂ/ ಜ ೕನು ಇದು>, ಸದ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ „ೕVOಾ= ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ 352/1, 352,2 352/3,
352/4 352/5 352/6 352/7 352/8 352/9 352/10 352/11 ಎಂಬು,ಾ=
„ೕVOಾ=ದು>, ಸದ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ 352/5 ರ9: ೇಣುAಾ ಯಲ:ಮD Fಾಗೂ !ಾಂತ ಮು ೇಶ ರ
,ೇವ ಾ-ನ Fಾಗೂ ಮು !ಾ ರವರ 7ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ ಇದು>, ಈ ಬ ೆW ಾ3y <ೈy

• 24 - NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

     ನAಾ!ೆಯಂiೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ2ದು>, ಈ ಬ ೆW ಾ5ಮಸ-ರು ©ಾಯ "ತ5ಗಳನು$ ೕVರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ ಸ.ನಂ
                                                                     ನಂ
     352/5 ರ9: 0-13 ಗುಂ6ೆ ಜ ೕ ನ9: ಮು !ಾ            ಉರು- "ನ$ಪ& Fಾಗೂ Fೆಂಡ/
     ಮು ಯಲ:ಮD      ಮತು0   ಮಕgಳY     ,ೇವ ಾ-ನದ    1ೊiೆ ೆ     ಮ ೆಯನು$      ಕ_uAೊಂಡು
     7ಾಸ4ರುವb,ಾ= /JKರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ

            ಮು !ಾ     ಉರು- "ನ$ಪ& ರವರು ಆ2 ,ಾ54ಡ ಜ ಾಂಗದವ ಾ=ರುವb,ಾ=
     /JKರುiಾ0 ೆ.ೆ Fಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ
                         ನಂ 352/2 ರ9: 0-14 ಗುಂ6ೆ Fಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ
                                                        ನಂ 352/5 ರ9: 0-12
     ಗುಂ6ೆ EzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ 8ಾiೆ,ಾರರುಗಳY ಎಂ ?5ೕ 7ಾP Fಾಗೂ SರM Aೆ ರವರ Fೆಸ ನ9:

ಕ5ಮ7ಾ= 0-06 ಗುಂ6ೆ,
ಗುಂ6ೆ 0-06 ಗುಂ6ೆ MlÄÖ 0-12 ಗುಂ6ೆ ಈ ಾಗ<ೇ ಭೂ
ಪ ವತ; ೆOಾ=ರುತ0,ೆ.ೆ Fಾಗೂ ಒಎP ನಂ 481/2011 ರಂiೆ K4f ಾ3Oಾಲಯದ9:

ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ 352/2 Fಾಗೂ
Fಾಗೂ 352/5 ಜ ೕನುಗಳ ಪ5ಕರಣ ನTೆಯು/0ರುತ0,ೆ.ೆ Fಾಗೂ ೆಂಗಳ ರು
4ದು3~ ಸರಬ ಾಜು ಕಂಪ ಯ ತ ರವರ ಆpಆp ಸಂ8ೆ3 K¸ï10ºÉZï96948,
2660306192 Fಾಗೂ 14001832 ರಂiೆ 8ಾiೆ ಇದು>, ಸ.ನಂ 352/5 Aೆg ಒಳಪ_uರುತ0,ೆ.
ಸದ ಜ ೕ ೆ ಸಂಬಂhKದಂiೆ ಪ5?$ತ, ಗೂಗf ನ®ೆ ©ಾಯಪ5/ಗಳY Fಾಗೂ
,ಾಖ<ೆಗ•ೆ ಂ2 ೆ ಮುಂ2ನ ಕ5ಮAೆg ತಮD ಅವ ಾಹ ೆ ೆ ಸ9:K,ೆ.

ಸl/-

ಉಪತಹ?ೕ<ಾ>ರರು
ಾಡಕ©ೇ , ೇಗೂರು
FೋಬJ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ"

(Emphasis added)

In that light, investigation in such cases is a must and is in the

least.
14. Therefore, finding no merit in these petitions, the

petitions stand rejected.

Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved.

• 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13573

HC-KAR

  Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

SD/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

BKP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25