Police can register cognizable government-land encroachment cases without prior notice, Karnataka High Court rules

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 341 IPC.

The complaint alleged that petitioner No. 1, the landlord, and petitioner No. 2, the developer, had encroached upon three guntas of Government karab land, including a pathway leading to a Government gunduthopu, and constructed a building on it

The petitioners relied on ownership, conversion, development and building-approval documents, and argued that a preliminary inquiry and show-cause notice were required before criminal proceedings could be initiated under Section 192-A

The FIR had been registered before the notice was issued to petitioner No. 2

1. Whether Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 requires a preliminary inquiry or notice before criminal proceedings may be initiated, and whether the 2008 Government notification could impose such a requirement.

2. Whether an offence under Section 192-A is cognizable and, if so, whether the police were required to register and investigate the case without a preliminary inquiry.

3. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in light of the allegations and the stage of investigation.

Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 prescribes offences and punishments for specified conduct involving Government land; the Court found that it does not itself require a preliminary inquiry or prior notice.

Section 192-D makes offences under the relevant Chapter cognizable.

The Court applied the principle that subordinate or executive instructions cannot override or amend a parent statute, relying on Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 50, State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2004) 3 SCC 48, and State of M.P. v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150.

Under Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2013) 14 SCR 713, police must register an FIR where the information discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court also relied on Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2018 SC 314, in declining to curtail an ongoing investigation at the FIR stage.

The Court held that the 2008 notification’s requirement to give an alleged encroacher an opportunity to produce documents before prosecution was not contained in Section 192-A and could not prevail over the statute.

It further noted that Section 192-D expressly makes the offences cognizable; accordingly, once the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, the police were required to register the case and investigate, rather than conduct a preliminary inquiry first.

The complaint specifically alleged encroachment of three guntas of Government land and construction on it. Since investigation was ongoing and the petitioners’ documents did not, at that stage, resolve the allegation, the Court held that the truth should be determined through investigation, with the police free to file an appropriate report based on its results.

Finding no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC while the investigation remained pending, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.