Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/5808/2020 of SMT. PADMAVATHI Vs THE TAHSILDAR-CUM-TALUK EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE on 19 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010287052020 NC: 2026:KHC:51490 CRL.P No. 5808 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5808 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PADMAVATHI, WIFE OF LATE PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5808 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. PADMAVATHI,
WIFE OF LATE PRAKASH,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 577 014.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. T.P. VASUNDARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE TAHSILDAR-CUM-TALUK
EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 577 014.
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SANTHEBENNURU POLICE STATION,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 577 014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU -560 001.
3.
SRI. RANGAPPA,
SON OF LATE THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RETIRED ENGINEER,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN CODE: 577 014.
4.
SRI. TIMMANNNA,
SON OF LATE TIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RETIRED ENGINEER,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 577 014.
(VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2026,
R3 AND R4 ARE DELETED)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2026, R3 AND R4 HAVE DIED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
27.08.2020 IN CRL.RP.NO.12/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-C
PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
CRIMINAL PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are no more.
2. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the order passed by the Revisional Court. The main ground urged in the petition is that while passing such an order, the learned Judge has not applied his judicious mind and order is capricious.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State would submit that the Revisional Court has passed the reasoned order and also comes to the conclusion that scope of enquiry under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was only to find out whether there is a need to execute any bond as provided under law. The Taluka Executive Magistrate could not pass an order regarding the possession of the properties of either of the parties.
HC-KAR
4. Having perused the reasoning given by the Revisional Court, it is very clear that there was a civil dispute between the parties. Original suit was filed and being aggrieved by the same, R.A. is filed and even R.S.A. is also filed before the before the High Court. If all the parties were aggrieved regarding possession of the properties, the same would have been urged before the High Court in R.S.A.No.1030/2018. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court has committed an error, cannot be accepted. The Revisional Court comes to the conclusion that the Tahsildar without applying the mind and also subjective satisfaction, passed the order. When such a reasoned order is passed by the Revisional Court coming to the conclusion that the order of the Tahsildar invoking the provisions of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and other provisions is not based on the subjective satisfaction, this Court does not find any ground to set aside the order of the Revisional Court.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the parties to Section 107 proceedings, are no more and only remaining
HC-KAR
parties are State i.e., Tahsildar and Police. Hence, no grounds to entertain this petition.
6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42