Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M.KHAZI, J.
S. Kandasamy, S/o Late P. Singara Mudaliar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2967 of 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W Criminal Petition No. 3034 of 2023
Decided on : 16-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. KUMAR M N, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, SRI.N.M.SUBBAIAH
Criminal proceedings against individuals for trespass are unwarranted when the land in question has been lawfully acquired and the complainant lacks any legal title or interest.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 447 and 427 r/w Section 34 - Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed - Complaint from respondent regarding alleged possession of land found to lack substance as prior legal decisions established that the land was acquired by the State for DRDO - No sufficient grounds for continuation of proceedings against former DRDO employees. (Paras 4.5, 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, former DRDO employees, faced criminal charges for alleged trespass and damage to property. The respondent claimed to have purchased land that was legally acquired by the government for DRDO projects.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court's continuation of charges was inconsistent with the record, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners had any rights over the land in question after it was acquired by the State for DRDO.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners, being ex-employees of DRDO, had no personal interest in the disputed land which was already legally transferred to DRDO, thereby making the criminal proceedings unwarranted.
Result: Both petitions allowed and criminal proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of criminal proceedings against accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background about land acquisition and complaints. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on the legality of proceedings. (Para 5 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. legal proceedings related to land acquisition. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. details on the finality of earlier court decrees. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. defense arguments regarding land sale and possession. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. final order quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
J.M.KHAZI, J.
These petitions are by accused Nos.1 and 2, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.58703/2017 on the file of XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC.
2. As these two petitions are arising out of the same case, they are clubbed together and disposed off by a common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the Court.
4. It is contended by the petitioners that accused No.1 joined Indian Army in the year 1985 and served at various places across the country in various capacities. Later, in the year 2001, he joined DRDO as Estate Manager in his capacity of Lieutenant Colonel, absorbed as Scientist'D' promoted as Scientist 'E' and worked as an Estate Manager during 2008–2011.
4.1 Similarly, No.2 joined Indian Army in the year1967 and served at various places across the country in various capacity. In the year 1993, he joined DRDO as Estate Superintendent in civilian capacity. At DRDO, he worked as in-charge of Accounts section, Store section and also Legal-in-charge dealing with land and litigation cases at various Courts.
4.2 The DRDO sought for acquiring land measuring to an extent of 113 acres and 36 guntas for establishing Electronic Warfare Range and other strategic projects of national importance. However, the land acquisition officer notified land measuring to an extent of 97 acres in various survey numbers of B.Narayanapura, Benniganahalli and Kaggadasapura, K.R. Pura, Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (Now coming under Bengaluru East Taluk), including 1 acre, 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli.
4.3 However, after the lands were notified for acquisition, the State Government withdrawn various Survey Numbers from acquisition, including land in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli measuring 21/2 guntas vide the Notification dated 16.02.1995. It was challenged by the DRDO in W.P.Nos.38638–646/1998. Vide order dated 25.01.2000, the said petitions came to be dismissed. DRDO challenged the same in W.A.Nos.2002–2010/2000. The said writ appeals came to be allowed vide order dated 24.08.2000. However, neither the notified Khatedar nor alleged purchasers challenged the said order and as such it became final.
4.4 Respondent No.2/complainant claimed to have purchased 21/2 guntas of land forming part of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli. Later, some of the land owners filed Special Leave Petitions. Leave was granted and they were numbered as Civil Appeal.No.6362/2001 and disposed of in terms of joint memo filed by the parties in the civil appeals, in which land measuring 21/2 guntas forming part of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 is not included. Hence, the wife of respondent No.2/complainant did not get any right, title, possession, and interest in the property alleged to have purchased by her.
4.5 However, respondent No.2/complainant went on giving written information with Bayappanahalli police dated 16.08.2004, 28.09.2004, 12.01.2005, 30.06.2005, 06.05.2007, 08.02.2008, 21.08.2008, 12.11.2008 and 08.03.2009 alleging trespass against the petitioners. It was registered in Cr.No.146/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 IPC. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police filed 'B' report. Instead of accepting the 'B' report, on the basis of protest petition, the trial Court rejected the same and ordered for registering criminal case against the petitioners. They
