The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched

against him in C.C.No.20397/2020 pending trial before the XLI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth

referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under

Sections 419, 420, 447, 427, 506 of IPC.

The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1

on 12.11.2018 about the commission of cognizable offences by

petitioner. He claimed that he was residing in the United States

of America. He claimed that he owned a property bearing

No.1, Khata No.624/1 carved out of residentially converted land

in Sy.No.1/2 measuring 11,500 square feet, he having

purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 24.03.2004. He

claimed that he was in possession and enjoyment of the

property and had enclosed it by a hollow brick compound wall.

He claimed that when he visited Bengaluru on 21.10.2018 and

visited the property on 26.10.2018 along with his friend, he

noticed that temporary structures were put up in the property

and on verification, he came to know that it was done at the

- 3 -

instance of the petitioner/accused. He claimed that the

petitioner/accused was the owner of the adjacent property on

the eastern side and that he demolished the portion of the

compound wall and entered into his property and put up

temporary sheds. He claimed that the accused was evading to

meet him and had threatened him and his friends with dire

consequences. He alleged that the accused threatened to kill

him and his friend, if he entered the property. He also claimed

that the accused had created documents to lay a claim to the

property and therefore, requested the respondent No.1 to take

suitable action against the petitioner/accused.

3.

Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered

Crime No.461/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections

419, 420, 426, 427, 447, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and

took up investigation. Soon thereafter, the respondent No.2

filed O.S.No.8335/2018 for the relief of declaration of his title

to the property and for recovery of possession of the property

allegedly encroached by the accused and to demolish the

temporary structures put up thereon and for perpetual

injunction restraining the accused and his servants, agents

from interfering with his possession and from encroaching,

- 4 -

alienating or changing the nature of the property. The

respondent No.1 after conducting investigation, filed a charge-

sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,

506, 447, 427 of IPC. The Trial Court perused the charge-

sheet and the materials along with the charge-sheet and was

"satisfied" that the accused had to be tried for the offences

punishable under Sections 419, 420, 427, 447, 506 of IPC.

Consequently, it took cognizance and directed registration of a

criminal case in C.C.No.20397/2020 and issued process to the

accused.

4.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the accused has

filed this petition.

5.

The

learned

Senior

counsel

representing

the

petitioner submitted that the Trial Court blindly took cognizance

of the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC without even

looking into the charge-sheet and material along with the

charge-sheet which did not disclose the commission of any

offence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC. He contended that

the statements of witnesses recorded by the respondent No.1

disclosed that there was no basis to invoke Sections 419 and

- 5 -

420 of IPC. He further contends that for an offence under

Section 447 of IPC to be attracted, the Trial Court must have

noticed the Karnataka Amendment to Section 441 of IPC, which

mandated that an offence of criminal trespass shall be deemed

to have been committed only when a notice is issued by the

owner of the property to the person who has allegedly

trespassed and if the person, who has trespassed fails to

remove himself from the property. He submits that in the

present case, the respondent No.2 did not issue any notice

calling upon the petitioner/accused to rem