CRL.P/4964/2026 of GIRISH Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 23 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.300/2025 for the offences alleged under Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before JMFC, Sakaleshpura, Hassan.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the property in question and he had filed an application seeking occupancy. The same was rejected and the said order was questioned

HC-KAR

before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has remanded the matter and the matter is pending consideration.

4. In addition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction in respect of the property which is in dispute. It is submitted that an application filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction was allowed in part, directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said order was called in question by the defendant who had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction. The Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed. The order directing status quo against the defendant was set aside and injunction is granted in favour of the defendant who is respondent No.2 before this Court.

5. It is the further submission that said order is called in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.29759/2024 and this Court has granted status quo on 24.02.2025. The complaint is lodged relating to the incident dated 11.03.2025. The said Writ Petition is disposed of vide order 04.02.2026 with a direction to both the parties not to alter the nature of the

HC-KAR

property. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that criminal prosecution is untenable.

6. It is the further submission that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint and petitioner's complaint is the first complaint and present complaint is a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel would urge that the charge sheet has to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the civil dispute relating to the property is pending before the Trial Court. However, the alleged incident is captured in a CCTV camera which was fixed at the scene of offence and the same was recovered by the Investigating Agency and is made part of the charge sheet.

8. Merely because the complaint is filed by the petitioner earlier to the complaint filed by respondent No.2, it is not a ground to quash the proceedings, is the submission.

9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

HC-KAR

10. To the question put by the Court, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on instructions would submit that, in the complaint filed by the petitioner, charge sheet is filed against respondent No.2 and same is pending consideration before the Trial Court.

11. The Court has noticed the allegations made in the complaint.

12. In the complaint, it is alleged that there was a verbal abuse and threat given to the complainant and there was an attempt to trespass into the property. Though it is seen that the dispute relating to the title to the property is still pending consideration and the Criminal Court may or may not be in a position to decide as to whether there was an attempt to trespass or not, however, the allegation relating to threat and verbal abuse has to be inquired into by the Trial Court based on the charge sheet materials.

13. In addition, Prima facie it is noticed that sale deed and RTC stand in the name of complainant/respondent.

HC-KAR

14. The application filed by the petitioner seeking occupancy is still under consideration.

15. Prima facie it is noticed that the injunction order is in favour of respondent No.2 which was granted by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.13, 14 and 15 of 2024. The relevant part of the operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"The plaintiffs and defendants No.7 to 10 are hereby restrained by way of temporary injunction from interfering with the defendant No.6 possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit."

16. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the matter requires trial.

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

18. It is made clear that observations made in this order are only confined only to the merits of the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and not on the merits or demerits of the charge sheet which is filed before the Trial Court. All contentions are kept open.

HC-KAR

19. Observations made in this order should not be construed as having reflected anything on the merits of the civil suit or the application pending before the Competent Authority.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17