SRI.RAMESH MOOLYA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7164 OF 2020


BETWEEN:

1. SRI. RAMESH MOOLYA
S/O LATE GURUVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.1410, ‘CHAITRA’
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD
HAVANUR LAYOUT
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560057.

2. SMT. DEVIKA
W/O SRI. RAMESH MOOLYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.1410, ‘CHAITRA’
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD
HAVANUR LAYOUT
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560057.

3. SRI. BHARATH MOOLYA
S/O SRI. RAMESH MOOLYA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.1410, ‘CHAITRA’
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD
HAVANUR LAYOUT
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560073.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ARUNSHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. HARANAHALLI LAW PARTNERS)












Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY BAGALGUNTE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.

2. SRI. MANJAPPA P.,
S/O POOVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
SOUNDARYA TRUST ROAD
HAVANOORU EXTENSION
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560073.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NISHANTH, A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.18814/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 354, 447, 504 AND 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860,
ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.75/2019 REGISTERED BY
BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, INSOFAR AS THE
PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3) ARE CONCERNED; AND
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.18814/2019, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 354, 447, 504 AND 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860,
INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED
NOS.1 TO 3), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 12.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER
Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioners, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The prayer sought in this petition is to quash
initiation of proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.18814/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 354, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The factual accusation made in the charge-sheet
against the petitioners is that these petitioners on 22.02.2019
at 11.00 a.m., went near the Educational Trust belonging to
C.W.1 with a common object having an ill-will against C.W.1-
Educational Trust Development and with that object,
trespassed the said Educational Trust and abused C.W.1
alleging that where is he and abused in a filthy language and
threatened to call him and if they fail to get him, they are going
to take away the life of C.W.5, C.W.6, C.W.7, C.W.8, C.W.9,
C.W.10, C.W.11, C.W.12, C.W.13, C.W.14 and C.W.15 and
accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 held C.W.16, C.W.17 and C.W.18 and
dragged them, even though they are woman and outraged their

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


modesty in the presence of other witnesses. Hence, filed the
charge sheet against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in his
argument would vehemently contend that very initiation of
criminal prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but an
abuse of process. The counsel would vehemently contend that
there was a trust deed dated 29.10.1990, wherein petitioners
are also trustees, but with an oblique motive, another Trust
deed was also made on 10.06.1999, wherein shown only two of
them as trustees, but removed the word ‘charitable’ while
making the fresh trust deed dated 10.06.1999 and so also,
removed the earlier other members of the Trust. The counsel
also would vehemently contend that a resolution was passed on
23.12.2016. But, it is alleged that earlier trustees have
resigned, however, they have not resigned. The counsel would
vehemently contend that lease agreement was executed when
the earlier Trust was formed and the accused No.1-petitioner
herein is owner of the said property. The counsel also would
contend that when the lease agreement was executed, it is
clear that property belongs to petitioner No.1. The counsel also
would vehemently contend that, even though subsequently,
Trust was created by making only two of them as trustees, but,

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


letter given to the income tax stating that they are doing their
activities in terms of earlier Trust Pan only and also even filed
an affidavit to that effect.
5. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
Annexure-B-complaint, wherein also reference is made that this
is a second complaint and counsel would vehemently contend
that MFAs are also filed in respect of suit in O.S.No.6549/2026
when the challenge was made questioning formation of new
Trust in the year 1999 which was filed by the petitioners. So
also, counsel brought to notice of this Court judgment passed
in M.F.A.No.1522/2024 and counsel would contend that in
other M.F.A.No.6631/2023, leave was granted and there were
other two suits. The counsel would vehemently contend that
there is a dispute with regard to title is concerned. When he
was the owner and executed a lease agreement, there cannot
be any trespass against the original trustees, who is the owner.
The counsel also vehemently contend that the Trial Court
committed an error in taking cognizance. The I.O. added
Section 354 of IPC subsequently while filing charge sheet and
criminal colour is given to a civil dispute. The counsel would
contend that when the case is filed against the complainant,
the Co-ordinate Bench quashed the same, as it is a civil

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


dispute. Hence, this Court also can quash the same terming the
same as civil dispute. The counsel would contend that in
respect of two survey numbers are concerned, there are suits
and eviction petition and in respect of the same land, there are
three suits in O.S.No.26500/2019, O.S.No.3883/2020 and
O.S.No.25334/2020 and in total, 11 litigation between them.
The counsel also filed synopsis furnishing all details. The
counsel also relied upon the documents filed along with memo
02.03.2024 and so also other documents to evidence the fact
that there was civil disputes between the parties.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in
support of his argument relied upon judgment of High Court of
Karnataka delivered in M.F.A.NO.1522/2024 dated
20.07.2026 , the judgment delivered in M.F.A.
NO.6631/2023 dated 17.07.2026. So also, copy of the order
of the Commissioner of Income Tax, copy of reply of Soundarya
Educational Trust to the Commissioner of Income Tax that the
respondent-complainant cannot blow hot and cold by furnishing
the details to the Income Tax Department. So also, copy of the
affidavit which was filed by the Managing/Authorized Trustee
and copy of the Board Resolution of Soundarya Educational
Trust dated 17.11.2025.

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


7. Learned Senior counsel in support of his argument
relied upon order passed by this Court in RAMAN REDDY G.V.
vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in CRIMINAL
PETITION NO.6805/2022 dated 19.02.2026, wherein this
Court considered that when the NCR is registered, the Police
Officer cannot proceed to register the FIR on the basis of a
similar second complaint and proceed with the investigation
without assigning any reason for such action.
8. The counsel also relied upon order passed by this
Court in SRI A. SRINIVASA AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHERS in WRIT PETITION
NO.35377/2016 dated 12.12.2018, wherein at paragraph
No.8, this Court taken note that in the first complaint dated
14.06.2014, there is a narration of incident that took place on
that day and the first complaint was treated as NCR and there
was no reason for the police to register the second complaint
on similar allegations in respect of the same incident is
concerned.
9. The counsel also relied upon judgment of Bombay
High Court in ASIF KHAN PATHAN vs. STATE THROUGH PP
AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE BOM 2217 and

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph
No.32, wherein it is held that the wordings of Section 155(2) as
quoted earlier are mandatory, if it is a cognizable offence and
also with regard to information given by the informant on which
a non-cognizable case is registered is discussed in paragraph
No.34.
10. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in B.N.JOHN vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported
in (2025) 11 SCC 701, wherein also the Apex Court discussed
with regard to as per FIR, there found no such allegation of
assault or use of criminal force, FIR based on the complaint
filed by the District Probation Officer, merely revealed
allegation of creating disturbance.
11. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in B.V. RAM KUMAR vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
ANOTHER reported in (2025) 3 SCC 475 , wherein also
discussion was made in paragraph No.22 with regard to
necessary ingredients required to substantiate a charge under
Section 504 IPC.
12. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in NARESH ANEJA ALIAS NARESH KUMAR ANEJA vs.

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in
(2025) 2 SCC 604, particularly brought to notice of this Court
paragraph Nos.22 to 24, wherein discussion is made something
better than vague statements must be produced before the
Court and mens rea to be established while invoking criminal
jurisdiction.
13. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER
vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in 2026
SCC ONLINE SC 915 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph No.36 with regard to exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C when the criminal offences are
invoked and so also, paragraph Nos.39 and 40, the accusation
made in the FIR and also filing of charge sheet.
14. The counsel also relied upon order passed by this
Court in SRI SRI RAGHUBHUSHAN THEERTHA SWAMIJI
AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER passed in WRIT PETITION NO.14154/2020
C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.935/2021 dated
03.03.2021, wherein this Court in paragraph No.5 discussed
with regard to there were exchange of abusive words between

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


the parties and wrongfully restrained them. When there was a
civil dispute between the parties are concerned and material
also placed with regard to the civil dispute is concerned, this
Court comes to the conclusion that offences invoked are under
Sections 341, 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. When
a civil suit is pending before the Court in respect of issue
involved between the parties, the matter has to be adjudicated
before the Trial Court and there cannot be any criminal
prosecution.
15. The counsel also relied upon order passed by this
Court in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5039/2023 & CONN.
PETITIONS dated 02.07.2024, wherein this Court in
paragraph No.6 taken note of accusation made in the said case
and while exercising the powers, comes to the conclusion that
General Power of Attorney was fraudulently got created and
observed that it would be for the Appellate Court to decide the
dispute between the parties relating to the property in question
which is the basis for the criminal complaint and allowed the
petition.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in
his argument would vehemently contend that charge sheet is

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


filed and Annexure-E is very specific and accusation is made
with regard to particular date of incident and in Annexure-B-
complaint also specific accusation is made that incident has
taken place on 22.02.2019. The counsel would contend that
prior to this incident, suit was also filed by the complainant
seeking the relief of bare injunction. The counsel also brought
to notice of this Court that petitioners herein have sought for
possession in their suit. Hence, question of trespassing does
not arise and they have trespassed the premises belonging to
C.W.1. The counsel also would contend that police have
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet on
14.07.2019. The counsel also contend that when such suits are
filed by the complainant and other suits are also filed, but other
suits which the petitioners are referring are subsequent to filing
of this complaint and only two suits were pending prior to this
incident.
17. The counsel would contend that judgment passed in
M.F.A.No.6631/2023 is challenging the order passed in
Misc.No.233/2021 and other judgment passed in
M.F.A.No.1522/2024 is challenging the order passed in
Misc.No.235/2021. The counsel would contend that order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax is dated 30.06.2026 and reply of

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


Soundarya Educational Trust to Commissioner of Income Tax is
dated 28.06.2026 and these are the documents subsequent to
filing of this complaint and these documents cannot be
considered and the Court has to only look into the documents
prior to filing of this complaint is concerned. The counsel would
contend that when the charge sheet is filed after the
investigation, this complainant also not suppressed the earlier
complaint and issuance of NCR and in the second complaint
itself, specifically stated the same and when there is no such
suppression, question of quashing does not arise. The counsel
also would contend that in respect of quashing of the
proceedings against the complainant, the issues in the suit and
in the complaint were one and the same. Hence, it was
quashed and therefore, question of quashing the proceedings
against the petitioners applying the similar reason does not
arise and this complaint and charge sheet is in respect of
criminal acts.
18. The counsel would submit that Principal, Teachers,
Driver and Lab Assistants were also present when the incident
took, who are the eye witnesses i.e., C.Ws.16 to 18 and the
petitioners outraged the modesty of Principal and Teachers and
manhandled them. Before filing the charge sheet, only two

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


suits were pending and subsequent to filing of charge sheet,
four suits are filed. When the suit is filed for the relief of
possession and eviction, question of trespass does not arise,
but trespassed, inspite of suit for possession and eviction are
filed.
19. In reply to this argument of learned counsel for
respondent No.2, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
would submit that Sy.No.23 is in respect of Trust property and
eviction suit is filed subsequently and suit filed by the
complainant for injunction is also withdrawn and the suit filed
for possession in respect of Sy.No.25 is only pending.
20. Having heard learned Senior counsel for petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1
and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also the grounds
urged in the petition, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:-
(1) Whether the petitioners have made out the
ground to quash the proceedings initiated
against them in filing the charge sheet and
whether this Court can quash the charge
sheet as contended by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners?

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


(2) What order?
Point No.(1)
21. Having considered the voluminous documents
produced along with the memo dated 02.03.2024, those
documents are trust deeds which are 2 in number, original suit,
amended trust deed, copies of RTI applications, copy of deposit
of title deeds and discharge deed, copies of discharge deed and
lease deed, copy of rent receipts, copy of confirmation deed,
copies of paper publications issued, and General Power of
Attorney, copy of affidavit, copy of sale agreement and copy of
notice dated 07.02.2020, postal receipt and acknowledgment
and copy of plaint and written statement in respect of
O.S.Nos.26500/2019, 25334/2020 and 3883/2020.
22. Apart from that, considering the grounds urged, it is
the main contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners that there is a dispute between the parties in civil
suit, as there were two trust deeds and no dispute with regard
to the fact that there were two trust deeds. It is also not in
dispute that issues involved between the parties are in respect
of Trust is concerned and subsequent trust deed of the year
1999 and original trust deed of the year 1990. The clauses

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


mentioned in the same are also brought to notice of this Court.
However, the scope of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
very limited and the Court has to examine whether the offences
invoked against the petitioners constitute the ingredients of
such offence. The Annexure-B is the complaint dated
22.02.2019. In the complaint, there was a reference of NCR
No.168/2019 and no dispute that NCR was given when the
complaint was given at 11.00 a.m. In the complaint itself, it is
stated that on the same day, in the morning at 11.00 a.m.
details are given in the earlier complaint, but NCR was issued.
But, main contention of learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner is that, once the NCR is issued, there cannot be
entertaining of second complaint. The Annexure-C is the FIR
based on the second complaint and Crime No.75/2019 is
registered invoking the offence under Sections 506, 341, 447,
504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation of trespass,
wrongful restraint, causing life threat and abuse in filthy
language was made in the complaint and further statement of
the witnesses were also recorded and police have also
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
23. This Court in short referred accusation made in the
charge sheet. It is also to be noted that Section 354 of IPC was

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


later added and to that effect also, statement of witnesses were
also recorded. The accusation made in the charge sheet is
causing life threat and abuse in filthy language, particularly life
threat was caused to C.W.5 to C.W.15 and outraged the
modesty of C.W.16 to C.W.18 i.e., Principal and Teachers and
also witnesses C.W.1 to C.W.26 are cited in the charge sheet.
But, while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
this Court cannot appreciate the disputed facts even if any
contradictions as contended by learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners.
24. It is also to be noted that learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners relied upon order passed by this
Court in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6805/2022 dated
19.02.2026 and so also, the order passed in WRIT PETITION
NO.35377/2016 dated 12.12.2018, wherein NCR was issued
and this Court has to take note of when the cognizable offence
was committed, question of issuing NCR does not arise. Having
perused the charge sheet and invoking of offence under
Sections 341 and 447 of IPC, it is very clear that both are
cognizable offences. In view of judgment of the Apex Court in
LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF U.P. reported in (2014) 2
SCC 1 , wherein it is categorically held that I.O. has no option

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


and it is mandatory on the part of I.O. to register the case
when the cognizable offence takes place. In the case on hand,
the I.O. later realized that offences invoked are cognizable
offences and the second complaint filed is also in respect of the
same incident. If cognizable offences takes place, the complaint
can be entertained. Hence, first contention that second
complaint cannot be entertained cannot be accepted and there
is no bar to entertain the same, when cognizable offences are
invoked and the same is not noticed on the very same day by
the I.O., though there was no suppression by the complainant
in the second complaint, wherein reference is made with regard
to first complaint given.
25. The counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court
in B.N.John’s case, in order to invoke Section 353 of IPC ,
there must be criminal force or assault and the same is not
applicable to facts of the case on hand. But, in the case on
hand, Section 354 of IPC is invoked and statement of witnesses
C.W.16 to C.W.18 was also recorded and whether such
manhandling was made or not and outraged modesty of a
woman is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be
dealt with in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

- 18 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


26. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in B.V. Ram Kumar’s case and brought to notice of this
Court discussion made in paragraph No.32 and whether the
petitioners have abused or not is also an issue to be considered
during trial, since in the complaint, specific allegations are
made that abused in a filthy language and cited the other
witnesses evidencing the incident.
27. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in Naresh Aneja’s case and brought to notice of this
Court paragraph Nos.22 to 24, wherein discussion was made
regarding mens rea to be established, something better than
vague statements must be produced before the Court. The
preliminary investigation report is also the concluding portion of
the charge sheet, no direct allegations nor any evidence in
support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant
and whether such intention was there or not is also a matter of
trial and permission is also sought for invoking Section 354 of
IPC when the witnesses speak about ingredients of offence
under Section 354 of IPC.
28. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel’s case, wherein also

- 19 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


the Apex Court in paragraph No.36 discussed with regard to
scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR. So also in
paragraph No.39 and 40, an observation is made that FIR did
not contain any allegation of extortion and discussion was
made with regard to exercising the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. while quashing the FIR. But, in the case on hand,
already investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed and
statement of witnesses is also recorded and the same will not
come to the aid of the petitioners.
29. The counsel also relied upon judgment of this Court
in Sri Sri Raghubhushan Theertha Swamiji’s case, wherein
this Court taken note of civil dispute between the parties and
both the parties have approached the Court for quashing and
also having taken note of the offences invoked and both the
parties have approached the Court, an observation is made that
when civil suit is pending, the matter has to be adjudicated
before the Trial Court in respect of civil rights of the parties is
concerned, if there is no criminal acts.
30. The other contention of learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that there is title dispute and
this Court cannot touch upon title dispute. The counsel also

- 20 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


contend that owner of the premises is one of the petitioner and
it will not amount to trespass. But, the fact is that suit is filed
for the relief of possession and another suit is filed for eviction
in respect of both the survey numbers. When such being the
case, when the petitioners are not in possession and if there is
an act of invading, when the possession is sought before the
Court, it amounts to trespass. No doubt, petitioner No.1 is
also one of the original trustee, but there is a clear dispute with
regard to rights of the parties of the Trust. The allegations
made in the complaint as well as charge sheet is a criminal act
and offence under Section 341 of IPC is a cognizable offence
which is invoked, and so also, with regard to trespassing and
offence under Section 447 of IPC, the same is also a cognizable
offence. Hence, it cannot be contented that criminal colour is
given to a civil dispute as contended by learned Senior counsel
for the petitioners.
31. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that when the complainant has
approached this Court, this Court has quashed the proceedings
in coming to the conclusion that it was a civil dispute. But, in
the case on hand, no doubt, there were suits between the
parties, but when a criminal act has occurred and specific

- 21 -
CRL.P No. 7164 of 2020


accusation is made and witnesses have also witnessed the
incident and the ingredients of the offence which have been
invoked are outraging the modesty of a woman, particularly
Principal as well as Teachers, the same has to be dealt with
before the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any force in the
contention of learned Senior counsel for petitioners that this
Court has to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I
answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’.
Point No.(2)
32. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE



ST