CHIKKANNA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 813 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE. CHIKKAANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE,
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU CITY- PIN 560 073
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANGAMMA GUDI PS,
YESHWANTHAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU CITY
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001

2. G V PRASAD
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 213,
SAI SADANA, RAMA PHARMA,
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU CITY- PIN 560073
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.
156/2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT / GANGAMMA GUDI PS,
YESHWANTHPURA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY (PRODUCED
VIDE ANNEXURE A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR
COMMISSION OF OFFENCE UNDE SEC. 506, 504, 447 AND 427 OF
IPC AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a. Quash the charge sheet in Crime No. 156/2023 of
the 1st respondent / GANGAMMA GUDI PS,
Yeshwanthpura Sub-Division, Bengaluru City
(produced vide Annexure A) as against the
petitioner / accused for commission of offence
under sec. 506, 504, 447 and 427 of IPC.

b. Set aside the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by
the learned 31st ACMM at Bengaluru in CC NO.
18413/2024 taking cognizance for the offence
under sec. 506, 504, 447 and 427 of IPC (produced
vide Annexure B).

c. Pass such other order as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.


2. Respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on
10.11.2023 alleging that on 04.11.2023 at 07:00
p.m. the petitioner along with 25 others had come
with the JCB, demolished the concrete compound
wall and on enquiry he had indicated that there was
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025

a procession to go through that location hence it was
demolished. But later on, it was found that the
petitioner was putting up construction, and the
second time an enquiry was made, the petitioner had
informed that it is his own property and nobody
could question him. It is on the basis of the said
complaint that FIR in Crime No.156/2023 was
registered by the Gangammana Police Station for
offences under Section 427, 506, 34, 504, 447 of the
IPC.

3. Investigation having been completed, a charge sheet
was laid on 18.04.2024 for offences under 447, 427,
504, 506 by giving up Section 34. The charge sheet
was laid only against the petitioner, arrayed as
Accused No.1. It is challenging that the petitioner is
before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri.Sachin.C., learned counsel for the petitioner,
would submit

4.1. Firstly, that the dispute is civil in nature
inasmuch as the suit in OS No.4206 of 2010 is
pending wherein respondent No.2 is defendant
No.25, and the wife of the petitioner is
defendant No.10 (b). He submits that the said
suit has been filed for partition and declaration
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025

that the earlier partition deeds, sale deeds,
etc., are not binding on the plaintiff on the
grounds that they are not parties to the
documents.

4.2. He submits that when the said suit is pending,
and in the suit the plaintiffs therein have
admitted that defendant No.1 to 16 are in joint
possession and enjoyment, which would include
defendant No.10(b), who is the wife of the
petitioner, to be in joint possession and thus
petitioner the husband of defendant No.10(b)
interfering with the alleged possession of
respondent No.2 would not arise.

4.3. Secondly, he submits that in the charge sheet
which has been filed, only the petitioner has
been arrayed as accused No.1. The other 25
persons stated to have come to the property to
demolish the compound wall and put up
construction have neither been arrayed as
accused nor as witnesses.

4.4. Lastly, he submits that no action has been
taken by respondent No.2 except to file the
criminal complaint. No application or the like
has been filed in the pending suit in respect of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025

the possession allegedly having been taken
over by the petitioner.

4.5. On that ground, he submits that a criminal
colour has been given to a civil dispute
requiring this Court to take necessary action.

5. Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for respondent No.2
would submit that;

5.1. Even a perusal of the plaint would indicate that
earlier partition of the year 1977 and
subsequent partition of the year 1996 are
sought to be set aside and the sale deeds
executed in favour of respondent No.2 on
23.08.2000, 06.09.2000, 02.11.2006,
09.05.2007 are sought to be declared to be
illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.

5.2. His submission is that the complaint having
been filed in the year 2023, the first partition
having occurred in the year 1977 and the first
sale having occurred in favour of Respondent
No.2 on 23.08.2000 it is deemed that
Respondent No.2 is in possession of the
property from the year 2000 and any claim,
contrary, cannot be sustained.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025


5.3. He submits that the averment made in the
plaint that the plaintiffs along with Defendants
No.1 to 16 cannot be accepted when they are
registered sale deeds in favour of Respondent
No.2 which continue to be subsisting and
binding on the parties until set aside in the said
suit.

5.4. Insofar as the complaint, he submits that the
complaint has been filed as regards both the
petitioner and the 25 persons who accompanied
them. The respondent-Police not having
investigated properly, cannot be held against
respondent No.2. The allegations being made
properly it was for the respondent-Police to
investigate the same, merely because the
charge sheet has been laid only against the
petitioner as accused No.1 without arraying the
other 25 people cannot deprive respondent
No.2 of the criminal proceedings on account of
the petitioner having unlawfully demolished the
compound wall and put up construction.

5.5. His submission is that a reading of the
complaint would ex-facise make out that the
offences are committed requiring the matter to
go for trial on a charge sheet as being laid.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025


5.6. As regards the dates which have been
mentioned in the statements of witnesses, he
submits that the same appears to be a
typographical error. The complaint having been
filed on 04.11.2023, statement having been
recorded on 10.04.2024, the date in the
statement showing 14.11.2024 ex-facise it is a
typographical error or the like and cannot be
attributed to Respondent No.2, is his
submission.

5.7. On all the above grounds, he submits that a
charge sheet having been laid, the matter
needs to go for trial.

6. Learned HCGP on enquiry as to why the other 25
have not been arrayed as accused and or witnesses,
she submits that there is nothing on record to
indicate the reason thereof. As regards the date, she
also submits that it must be a typographical error in
a similar manner as that submitted by the counsel
for respondent No.2.

7. Heard Sri.Sachin.C., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel., learned HCGP for
respondent No.1 and Sri.Harish.H.V., learned counsel
for respondent No.2. Perused papers.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025


8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is a civil suit which is pending and
therefore a criminal complaint had been filed to give
a criminal colour to a civil dispute, would ordinarily
be acceptable if there is no criminal offence or
elements relating thereto made out on the basis of
the complaint.

9. The contention of the petitioner is basically two fold;
one contending that the civil suit is pending; the
other contending that the other persons have not
been made as accused or as witnesses.

10. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, in the suit
which has been filed, the plaint which has been
accepted by the petitioner himself indicates that
there are registered sale deeds which have been
executed in favour of Respondent No.2, much earlier
to the complaint, commencing from the year 2000.

11. Even prior thereto, there was an unregistered
partition deed on 9.11.1977 followed by a
compromise in OS No.2175/1995 on 16.07.1996.
Apart from that, there are several other
compromises and sale deeds which are challenged in
OS No.4206 of 2010. Though in the plaint it is stated
that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 16 are in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025

joint possession. The fact remains that the plaintiffs
and defendants No.1 to 16, being members of the
same family, have challenged the earlier partition,
compromise and sale deeds executed by other
members of the family.

12. Defendant No.25-herein who is Respondent No.2-
herein is a third-party purchaser of the property way
back in the year 2000. Thus, a statement inter se
made between the family members of the plaintiffs
and defendants No.1 to 16 cannot be held to be, at
this stage, binding on defendant No. 2, who is the
complainant third-party purchaser.

13. The photographs which have been produced along
with the charge sheet indicate debris lying around in
the property and the construction being put up.
Hence, regarding the first contention that there is a
civil suit which is pending, it cannot be a defence for
the present matter, since there is apparently, on the
face of the complaint and on the face of the charge
sheet a JCB which has been used for demolishing the
compound wall and subsequently some construction
has been put up. Whether the same has been done
by the petitioner or not is the subject matter of trial.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025


14. Insofar as the second contention regarding the
charge sheet is again two-fold; firstly, that the other
persons named in the complaint, namely 25 persons,
have not been made as accused and/or witnesses
and secondly, that the witness statements indicate
the date as 14.11.2024.

15. Both these cannot be held to affect the case of the
complainant. Both these aspects can at the most be
related to the investigation carried out by respondent
No.1. It would always be available for respondent
No.2 to file necessary application in relation thereto
to bring it to the notice of the Court as regards the
improper investigation carried out in respect of the
complaint filed by respondent No.2.

16. Insofar as the statement is concerned, the complaint
is dated 04.11.2023. The statements were recorded
on 10.04.2024, wherein the date of the incident has
been mentioned as 14.11.2024. The ex-facie date of
14.11.2024 could not have been found mentioned in
a statement recorded on 10.04.2024, which would
indicate that it is a typographical error.

17. The typographical error is two fold; firstly, as on the
date and next on the year is expressly explicit on the
face of records.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59195
CRL.P No. 813 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010032472025


18. Insofar as the date is also concerned, the date is
mentioned as 14 instead of 4, which also, as of now,
appears to be a typographical error and does not
require this Court to give a finding in relation
thereto, and it will have to be determined by the trial
Court.

19. That cannot at this stage give rise to acceptance of
the claim of the petitioner that the complaint has to
be quashed once a charge sheet has been filed
indicating the demolition of the compound wall.

20. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following;
ORDER
dismissed

i. Criminal petition stands .


ii. Reserving liberty to the petitioner as well as
respondent No.2 to file such application as may be
necessary before the trial Court.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9