Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.143 OF 2026 (GM -RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRI RAVI SHANKAR

S/O LATE R.S.V RATHNAM

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

R/AT PANCHAGIRI ASHRAM

VEDA VIGNAM MAHA VIDYA PEETA

(VVMP), UDAYAPURA HALLI

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

BENGALURU – 560 082

SHOWN IN FIR AS SRI RAVI SHANKAR

ART OF LIVING ASHRAM

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY BENGALURU METROPOLITAN

TASK FORCE POLICE STATION (BMTF)

BENGALURU CITY

REPRESENTED BY ITS

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . LAKSHMAN GOWDA S.,

S/O SHIVANNA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

INSPECTOR OF POLICE

BENGALURU OFFICE OF BENGALURU

METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE

POLICE STATION (BMTFF)

BENGALURU CITY

BBMP HEAD OFFICE BUILDING

BENGALURU - 560 002.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.A.BELLIAPPA, SPP-I A/W SRI THEJESH P, HCGP)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Sriranga, P. Prasanna Kumar
For the Respondents: B.A. Belliappa, Thejesh P

A criminal investigation cannot be sustained against an individual if the complaint fails to disclose prima facie ingredients of an offence or fails to demonstrate any specific link to the alleged wrongdoing, as proceeding otherwise would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Section 528 - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 192-A - Quashing of FIR - Criminal procedural law requires that registration of a crime should be based on prima facie evidence of an offence - Investigation cannot be permitted against an individual when the complaint does not disclose any ingredient of the alleged offence or link the person to the act of encroachment. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law - Where allegations in an FIR are devoid of any connection to the accused or fails to prima facie constitute a cognizable offence, the High Court is obligated to exercise its jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
An individual was arrayed as an accused in a registered FIR for the offence of encroachment of government land. The petitioner contended that there was no allegation of wrongdoing against him in the complaint beyond the fact that he was previously a party in a public interest litigation regarding the same subject matter. The prosecution argued that the investigation was necessary to determine if the petitioner was the 'face' of the alleged activities and that the matter was in its infancy.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the complaint, even when accepted at face value, did not contain any specific allegation or ingredients linking the petitioner to the alleged encroachment. Consequently, allowing the investigation to proceed would constitute an abuse of the process of law, justifying intervention under the inherent powers of the Court.

Issues: Whether the registration of a criminal complaint against an individual solely based on their inclusion as a respondent in a separate civil public interest litigation is legally sustainable when no specific ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed against them.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of a FIR for a cognizable offence requires the existence of prima facie material in the complaint itself. Where the complaint fails to establish any link between the accused and the alleged offence, or where the allegations are inherently improbable or lack the necessary ingredients, the Court must quash such proceedings to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure justice is served.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR and complaint quashed qua the petitioner.

Reserved on : 03.03.2026

Pronounced on : 25.03.2026

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.201/2025 DATED 19.09.2025 THE RESPONDENTS/BMTF POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 192A OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 INSOFAR AS THE PTITIONER HEREIN/1ST ACCUSED IS CONCERNED (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE ‘E AND E1’ TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.201 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel along with Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.A.Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. The petitioner claims to be the founder of Art of Living Foundation and a renowned spiritual leader propagating human values through several yogic procedures such as meditation, Sudarshan Kriya and also known as peace ambassador in India and worldwide. The genesis of the present petition emerges from a petition filed by one Chandrasekaran N and others in Writ Petition No.15264 of 2023, a petition filed in public interest with a prayer to direct the State to consider the representations of the petitioners therein and to demolish the apartments constructed allegedly encroaching Government land. The petitioner was arrayed as party respondent No.5 in the said petition. The petitioner then is said to have filed an application seeking to dismiss the petition, at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on the score that he did not own any piece of land in the survey numbers that were alleged to be encroached. The Division Bench considering the fact that the writ petition was only for a direction to respondent/State to consider the representation, took note of the memo filed by the learned Government Advocate and disposed of the petition on 09-09-2005 directing the State to take action against the encroachers, if situation warrants. Proceedings on the very same subject matter was brought up before the Court constituted to tackle land grabbing, in LGC(P) No. 23 of 2024 against Sri Sumeru Realty Private Limited.

3.2. When things stood thus, the Inspector of Police of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (‘BMTF’) registered a suo-motu complaint on 19-09-2025, allegedly based on the report of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. It is alleged in the aforesaid First Information Report that the petitioner and 4 others have encroached Government land, lake and Rajakaluve in Sy.Nos. 160, 164/1, 164/2, 150, 137, 135 and 46 situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Except naming the petitioner in the complaint there is no other indication of any wrong doing on the part of the petitioner that would become ingredients of Section 192-A of the Act. Pursuant to registration of crime in Crime No.201 of 2025, a notice comes to be issued by the Police on 18-12-2025, in exercise of power under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The said police notice is addressed to the 2nd accused against whom the allegation of encroachment has been made. The issuance of notice has driven the present petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri S.Sriranga and the learned counsel Sri P.Prasanna Kumar appearing for the petitioner would in unison vehemently contend that on a reading of the entire complaint it can be noticed that not even a word is mentioned about role of the petitioner in the alleged encroachment of Government land which would become the ingredient

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11248

A criminal investigation cannot be sustained against an individual if the complaint fails to disclose prima facie ingredients of an offence or fails to demonstrate any specific link to the alleged wrongdoing, as proceeding otherwise would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Cases Referred (3)