IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13384 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. C. NAGAPPA REDDY, S/O. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, R/AT NO.11, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 2^ND MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SRINIVAGILU, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 047.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALI M.., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BMTF POLICE, REPRSENTED BY TSTAE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT BULIDING, BANGALORE – 01.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High THIS CRL.P FILED IS U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, BNNS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CC Dharwad NO.112/2013, ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALUR QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.112/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 192(A)(b), OF KLR ACT AND SEC.406,409,120,120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Murali M., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.R. Patil, the learned HCGP for respondent.

2. The petitioner is accused No.17 qua other accused.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the proceedings. The same reads as follows:

Accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 in Crime No.46/2012 registered with respondent – Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force Police for the offence punishable under Section 192- A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as well as the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, presently pending in C.C. No.112/2013 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, have come up in these petitions seeking quashing of the said complaint with reference to the offences alleged to have committed by accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 in encroaching into a portion of Raja Kaluve, which is passing through their land.

2. Admittedly, no notice was duly served on the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.8, 9 and 10, and they had no opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them regarding the encroachment into government land i.e., Raja kaluve. It is also seen that the alleged encroachment is not identified by conducting a survey in the presence of petitioners and they were not informed about filing of the complaint in Crime No.46/2012, which is subsequently, registered as complaint in C.C. No.112/2013. The conduct of the respondent herein in registering the complaint without giving sufficient opportunity to respondents to give explanation regarding the alleged encroachment and in not informing them about the survey being conducted to ascertain the alleged encroachment committed by accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 is deplorable. There appears to be an error by the Police in not following the notification issued by the Government in this behalf in RD.674.LGB.2008 dated 08.09.2008. It is also seen that the said error on the part of the respondent - Police would be as in the matter of Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, DPAL., and Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520, wherein Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:

“In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of nature justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to realize whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution. That would meet the ends of justice. In that view of the m