SRI. BABU REDDY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.651 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BABU REDDY
S/O LATE GURULINGAREDDY
AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT SURVEY NO.1/2
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
SARJAPURA ROAD
VARTURU HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 035
2.
SMT. VEENA
W/O BABU REDDY
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/AT SURVEY NO.1/2
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
SARJAPURA ROAD
VARTURU HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 035
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUPREETH S ATHREYAS, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELLANDUR POLICE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU
2. P D O (PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER)
HALANAYAKANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
BENGALURU EAST ATLUK
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 035
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI N NARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [ABSENT])
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VI A.C.M.M IN CR.NO.21/2019 IN
C.C.NO.11555/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
ST
41 A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY U/S 427 OF IPC R/W 2 OF
THE PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION OF LOSS OF PROPERTY
ACT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the
st
proceedings in C.C.No.11555/2020 on the file of 41 ACMM,
Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 427 of
IPC read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and
Loss of Property Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The accusation made in the charge sheet invoking
Section 427 of IPC and also Section 2 of Prevention of
Destruction of Properties Act is that there was an existence of
the road in Survey Nos.1/1, 1/2 and 5/3 which connected to
Survey Nos.1/3, 1/4 and 5/6 of Halanayakanahalli Grama
Panchayath to the extent of 1000 feet. The said road is in
existence to the width of 30 feet and even this road was formed
12 years ago and drainage work was also done and electrical
poles were also installed to the said street and the same was in
existence till 23.01.2019 and the same has been caused
damages by the accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the owners of
the property in Sy.No.1/2. hence, charges are levelled against
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
the accused persons that they caused the damages to the tune
of Rs.30,000/- in destruction of the public property.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that very registration of the case against the petitioner
is nothing but an abuse of process. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that the registration of the case in Crime
No.21/2019 and filing of the charge sheet in
st
C.C.No.11555/2020 which is pending on the file of the 41
Additional CMM, Bangalore City, wherein offence invoked under
Section 427 of IPC and Section 2 of the Prevention of
Destruction and Loss of Property Act is nothing but an abuse of
process and it requires interference of this Court. The Counsel
also would vehemently contend that the second respondent has
no jurisdiction to lodge the complaint and claim the property is
an agriculture land which is not within the purview and
jurisdiction of the second respondent. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that that the land bearing Sy.No.1/2
measuring 1 acre is not the subject matter of any acquisition
and requisition. When such being the state of affairs, the
initiation of proceedings by the first respondent is only an
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
illegal, improper. The counsel also would submit that the
second respondent inspite of the fact that land in question is an
agriculture land and he has no jurisdiction to interfere with the
possession of the property belongs to the first petitioner is
equally has no right to file a complaint. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that when he has no any right to claim the
property as a Grama Panchayath road, the very initiation of the
proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process. If it is
continued to proceed against the petitioners, it would amounts
to miscarriage of justice.
5. The counsel in support of his arguments, relies
upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 29.01.2026 in Writ Petition No.5627/2019 and
brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in
paragraph 5 and so also in paragraph 11 wherein discussion
was made that even considered the photograph which has been
taken through the satellite map from Dishaank on 06.02.2019
which is after an attempt had been made for formation of a
road to show that there is an existence of the road. The said
picture is not one which has been taken at an undisputed point
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
of time. Even the photographs which have been produced by
respondent No.1 are ones which have been taken after the road
has been formed which had been objected by the petitioner.
When such consideration was taken note of by the court comes
to the conclusion that there is no any existence of such road
and there is no positive aspect of existence of road being
required to be established by respondent No.1 has not been
established by respondent No.1 and so also an observation is
made that necessarily enquiry would have to be conducted by
the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department or an officer
designated by him into this issue to ascertain the complicity, if
any, of respondent No.1 and his officers with respondent No.3
and hence, direction also given to file a report within 4 weeks
and also ordered to re-list the matter on 26.02.2026. The
counsel strength on this order would contend that when the
road is not in existence, the question of causing any damage
does not arise.
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State
would submit that based on the complaint case was registered
and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
Investigating Officer also collected the documents and
produced the documents along with the charge sheet to show
that there is an existence of the road; acquisition of the
property of Sy.No.1/1; conversion of the said land; formation
of the road in Sy.No.1/1; the order of the Deputy
Commissioner; the photographs for having dumped the mud on
the drainage and also on the road as Document No.10 and the
complaint is also filed by the PDO of Halanayakanahalli Grama
Panchayath who has been cited as CW1. CW2 and CW3 have
assessed the loss of destruction of the public property and
witnesses CW4 to CW7 were also cited who are the witnesses in
the charge sheet.
7. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and
also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State. The
complainant though represented through counsel, but he is
absent.
8. Having considered the factual aspects of the case,
court has to take note of Annexure-A - FIR which is registered
based on the complaint of PDO as per Annexure-B, wherein
specific allegations are made that road runs through
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
Sy.Nos.1/1, 1/2, 5/3 and survey number on the southern side
1/3, 1/4, 5/6 and the said road leads from Halanayakanahalli
grama panchayat to the extent of 1000 feet and also the road
is in existence from last 12 years and the same was formed and
also electric poles are also installed by the side of the road and
also made the drainage and the said road was in existence till
23.01.2019. Based on the complaint, the case is registered and
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. While filing
the charge sheet also Document Nos.1 to 12A also taken note
of and cited the witnesses as CW1 to CW7 including the CW1
who made the complaint and also police have investigated the
matter and collected the report from CW2 and CW3 who have
assessed the loss caused to the public property to the extent of
Rs.30,000/-. When such allegations are made in the complaint
as well as in the charge sheet and witnesses have been cited
and photographs are also taken with regard to the dumping of
the mud on the road and when the road is in existence
according to the complainant and also the witnesses who have
been examined before the investigating officer, the disputed
questions cannot be decided either in the writ petition or in the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The counsel relying
upon the judgment of this court passed in WP mainly contend
that no such road is in existence. But when the documents are
placed before the court along with the charge sheet and
statement of witnesses including the photographs of dumping
of the mud in the road which is in existence and when specific
allegations are made in the complaint as well as in the charge
sheet that the said road was in existence from last 12 years,
the same is a matter of disputed issue and the same has to be
considered during the course of the trial and this Court sitting
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot consider the grounds which
have been urged by the petitioners. The documents which have
been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners also could
be relied upon during the course of trial as defence and this
Court cannot exercise the powers of defence also relying upon
the defence documents and cannot conduct a mini trial while
considering the quashing of the proceedings under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. The scope of this Court is very limited. Under the
circumstances. I do not find any grounds to entertain the
petition.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58674
CRL.P No. 651 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010028962021
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
However, the counsel for the petitioners at this juncture
seeks liberty to file a necessary application for discharge before
the Trail Court. Hence, the liberty is given if the petitioners are
entitled.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN