Karnataka High Court
Sri H Srinivas Reddy vs State By Belandur P.S on 2 April, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13997
CRL.P No. 782 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 782 OF 2022
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI H SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O HANUMANTHA REDDY,
AGED 72 YEARS,
R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURTHY DAYANAND NAIK SR. COUNSEL, FOR
SRI. AKASH V T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T 1. STATE BY BELANDUR P.S.
Location:
High Court REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
of Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MS SHILPA K
AGED 32 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
LAKES BBMP,
BBMP HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13997
CRL.P No. 782 of 2022
(BY SRI. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. REKHA. K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CR.NO.111/2021 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE XLI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 431, 447 OF IPC AND FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 3 OF THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DAMAGES
OF PUBLIC PROPERTY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR in Crime No.111/2021 of Bellanduru Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence Punishable under Section 431 and 447 of IPC, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to public Property Act, 1984 is before this Court in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, Learned High Court Government Pleader for the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022 State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The law was set into motion by second respondent, Assistant Engineer, Lakes, BBMP, alleging that on 01.07.2021, when she along with other BBMP officials visited Junnasandra lake, they noticed that the petitioner was excavating soil to construct a shed in the northern portion of the lake. It is alleged that the petitioner has encroached the tank bed area and thereby committed the aforementioned offence.
4. The claim of the petitioner is that, he is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession and occupation of the property bearing Survey No.32 measuring 6 acres 08 guntas situated in Junnasandra village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, East Taluq, having inherited the said property from his late father H.V.Hanumantha Reddy. The said property was granted by the land Tribunal in case No.LRF INA 31/90-91 vide order dated 15.07.1994 in favour of petitioner's father and others. It is contended by -4- NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022 the learned senior counsel that the complaint does not attract the ingredients of the offence alleged as the complainant has not specified the area in which the construction has been made and further there is no area which has been mentioned in the complaint with respect to alleged encroachment. It is contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of his ancestral property and he has not encroached any land as alleged and the complaint taken on its face value, does not disclose any criminal offence against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections. She vehemently contended that a decision was taken by the Government of Karnataka to transfer 60 lakes to the BBMP, out of the current 91 lakes managed by the Bengaluru Development Authority. Petitioner was found excavating soil on the northern side of Junnasandra lake to construct a shed and it is false to say that complainant has not indicated any particular area or location in the complaint concerning -5- NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022 alleged trespass by the petitioner. She contended that the petitioner cannot claim right over the lake bed area and it is incorrect to assert that the statements in the complaint did not constitute the offences Punishable under Section 431 of IPC and the offences mentioned therein. She contended that the petitioner has encroached the lake, specifically in survey No.32 which encompasses 0.02½ guntas of the Government land, identified as Junnasandra lake and classified as Government property. She has therefore, contended that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner and sought to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed an application seeking vacating of the Interim Order contending that the matter is still under investigation and therefore, in view of the complaint allegations, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner. She has therefore, sought to vacate the Interim Order and dismiss the petition.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order of the land Tribunal in LRF/ALA31/90-91 dated 15.07.1994, as per which, total 6 acres 08 guntas of the property in Survey No.32 of Junnasandra village was granted in favour of Hanumantha Reddy, father of the petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the order of the land Tribunal has attained finality as there was no challenge to the same.
8. It is also relevant to mention that W.P.No.5504/2012 (PIL) was filed by one Giriraj. J. alleging encroachment of tank bed in Survey No.32 of Junnasandra village, East Bangalore measuring 24 acres 33 guntas and seeking a direction to take possession of the said land by evicting the land grabbers. The said Writ Petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- vide order dated 02.09.2014. The order passed by the land Tribunal was taken into consideration in the said Writ Petition.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022
9. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the Tahsildar passed an order for resumption of the land in question in RRTCR:1836/10-11, LNDCR:295/11-12 i.e., in survey No.32 of Junnasandra village measuring entire 24 acres 33 guntas. The order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk was challenged by one Sri. H.M. Mohan Reddy and others in W.P.No.57715/2014 and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2023, quashed the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner is one of the respondents in the said writ petition. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.9 of the said order-
9. On perusal of the order dated 02nd September, 2014 In Writ Petition No.5504 of 2012, this Court had an occasion to consider the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3516 of 1985 dated 31st August, 1997 and order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-B dated 15th July, 1994, and further, having taken note of the fact that the land has been granted in favour of the petitioners as per the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-B and the finding recorded by Division Bench of this Court in -8- NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022 WP 5504 of 2012 dated 02nd September, 2014 (Annexure-H), I am of the view that the respondent No.3 has no authority under Section 94 and 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to issue order and mahazar produced at Annexures 'P' and 'Q' respectively, stating that the petitioners are illegally encroached the Tank Bed. In that view of the matter, petitioners have made out a case for interference in this writ petition and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the application filed by the impleading applicants in IA.1 of 2020 is dismissed as the land is granted to the petitioners as per Annexure-B and the observation made above, I am of the view that application IA.1 of 2020 does not arise for consideration. In the result writ petition allowed.
Order dated 26th September, 2014 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent No.3 and Mahazar dated 01st October, 2014 (Annexure-Q) prepared by the respondent No.3 are hereby quashed.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, a case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the registration of FIR against him. This Court is of the considered view that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:13997 CRL.P No. 782 of 2022 hence, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The registration of FIR in Crime No.111/2021 at Bellanduru Police Station, Bengaluru City and the consequent proceedings pending before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.
iii) I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed of.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17