Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7805 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7679 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 7805/2025
BETWEEN:
MR.NAYEEM NOOR S/O NOOR MOHAMMED OMER,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT:NO. 88, MOSQUE ROAD,
OPP. KFC, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005.
…PETITIONER
Dig itally (BY SRI KIRAN S.JAVALI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
signed by SANJEEVINI J SRI AMAR ALEXANDER CORREA, ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court of Karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU – 560 068.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 01.
2. SRI NAGARAJU S/O. MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMI@ CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT: NO. 1115, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, BEGURU, BENGALURU – 560 068.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 BNNS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 30.05.2024, 29.05.2025 IN CR.NO.122/2025 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BEGURU POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(2)(v), 3(1)(g) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEC.115(2), 138, 190, 304(2), 310(2), 324(5), 331(4), 351(3), 352 OF THE BNS 2023 CORRESPONDING SEC.323, 362, 149, 395, 427, 457, 506, 504) PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED NO.2 VIDE ANNENXURE A AND B.
IN CRL.P NO. 7679/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAVICHANDRA H.R., S/O RAJASHEKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.748, 18TH MAIN,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 095.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI CHANDRA NAIK T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI NAGARAJU S/O MUNISWAMI @ MUNISHAMI @ CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO.1115, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
BEGUR, BENGALURU CITY – 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASHING THE FIR IN CR.NO.122/2025, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (BEGUR P.S) FOR THE O/P/U/S 3(2)(V), 3(1)(g) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT-1989 AND SEC.115(2), 138, 190, 304(2), 310(2), 324(5), 331(4), 351(3) AND 352 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, CCH-71 AT BANGALORE.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, in these cases, call in question a solitary crime that is registered in Crime No. 122 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) and Sections 115(2), 138, 190, 304(2), 310(2), 324(5), 331(4), 351(3) and 352 of BNS, 2023.
2. Heard Sri Kiran S Javali, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.7805 of 2025 and Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.7679 of 2025, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt Suman Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioners in these cases are accused Nos.1 and 2. A complaint comes to be registered on 29-05-2025 alleging several offences against these accused. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No. 122 of 2025. Barely within a week, the subject petitions are filed. The crime is interdicted by grant of an interim order of stay at the hands of the co-ordinate Bench. The application seeking vacation of the interim order is preferred by the State and the 2nd respondent/complainant. The matter is heard at that stage.
3.2. It is the case of the complainant that, on 29-05-2025, several persons, including the accused, along with certain henchmen barged into the property of the complainant, kidnapped, thieved and assaulted the complainant apart from trespassing into his property. The backdrop to the said registration of the crime is a claim over the property. The property is the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.2150 of 2007 filed by the father of the complainant. The suit is instituted seeking relief of declaration and possession. The suit comes to be rejected. The rejection of the suit is challenged in the year 2025 before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the matter is pending in RFA No.2119 of 2025.
3.3. Contemporaneously, while filing the Regular First Appeal before this Court, the complainant has also set the criminal law into motion, not on the pendency of the said proceeding or on the same cause of action, but on the several other offences as indicated hereinabove. The registration of the crime against the accused is what has driven the accused to this Court in these subject petitions.
4. The learned senior counsels Sri Kiran S Javali and Sri Sandesh J Chouta appearing for the petitioners in these cases would in unison contend that, the matter which is purely civil in nature is sought to be projected to become a crime, as the father of the complainant who was plaintiff in the aforesaid suit O.S.No.2150 of 2007 has lost the suit and after losing the suit, his son has set the criminal law into motion, now on the ground that the petitioners have trespassed into the property of the complainant. The complainant is not even in possession of the property and if the complainant is not in possession of the property, it would not become the offence of criminal trespass.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Kiran S Javali would submit that Sy No. 352 is not even in existence, for which they claim that phodi has been done and now numbered as Sy.No.352/2 to 325/7. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is completely contrary to the record. If the complainant is not in possession of the property, the crime itself could not have been registered against these petitioners is what is urged before the Court.
6.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent complainant and the 1st respondent/State would in unison submit that the issue is not with regard to the civil suit being given a colour of crime or a civil proceedings being given a colour of crime.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
