Karnataka High Court
Charan B S (A-1) vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1999 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. CHARAN B S (A-1)
S/O SHIVAPADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF LINGAYATHAR BEEDI,
BADANAGUPPE VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
PINCODE-571313.
2. SHIVAPADAPPA (A-2)
S/O NANJUDAPPA @ GURUSIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LINGAYATHAR BEEDI,
BADANAGUPPE VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
PINCODE-571313
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARAS CHANDRA M., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJANAGARA RURAL P S
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
(REP. BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
BENGALURU CITY -560001)
2. SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY,
S/O MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025
RESIDENT OF MELAJIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
PIN 571313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL SPP. FOR R1,
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA)
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
PRL.DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT IN CRL.MISC.NO.353/2025 AND 355/2025 DATED
18.09.2025 AND ENLARGE ON BAIL IN CR.NO.167/2025
CHAMARAJANAGARA RURAL P.S IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST FOR THE O/P/U/S 191,417,419,420,468,471 OF IPC
AND 3(1)(F) OF SC/ ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRL.DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 18th September 2025, passed in Criminal Misc. No.353 and 355 of 2025 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar (for short "the Trial Court")
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of complaint filed by one Mahadevaswamy, Chamarajanagar Rural Police have registered case in Crime -3- CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025 No.167 of 2025 against accused 1 to 10 for offence punishable under sections 191, 417, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/CT (PoA) Act. The appellants have filed application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Same came to be rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the rejection of anticipatory bail, appellants/accused 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any of the offences alleged against them. The complainant's father, after receiving money, submitted an application to change the name of appellant No.1, Charan, in the khata. Therefore, appellant No.1 initiated a suit before the Tahsildar Court at Chamarajanagar in Sa.RRT(T) No.96/2022-
23. The Tahsildar disposed of the case on 24th August, 2022, holding that the status quo must be maintained in land survey No. 504, measuring 4.24 acres of Badanguppe Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk. The order of the Tahsildar in the above suit discloses that on 6th July, 2022, the respondent in -4- CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025 Sa.RRT(T) No.96/2022-23 appeared before the Tahsildar Court and submitted in writing that they had no objection to the change of khata and that the objection made earlier against the change of khata in favour of appellant No.1 would be withdrawn.
4. The father of the complainant instituted a civil suit on 13th January, 2025, in OS No.9 of 2025 against his sons, including the complainant, seeking relief of partition and separate possession. Initially, the family members were parties to the suit. The plaint in OS No.9 of 2025 discloses that the suit was instituted for relief of partition and separate possession to receive compensation from KIADB. Appellant No.1 filed an application to be included as a necessary party to the suit, which the complainant, as defendant, objected to.
5. The complainant is not the owner of the property. KIADB acquired the land, and it was transferred as per MRT No. T276/2024-2025 on 29th November, 2024. However, the complainant did not lodge a complaint for over ten months and filed the complaint only after the lapse of this period, apparently to claim money from KIADB.
-5-CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025
6. The learned counsel would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or a private vendetta. He would also submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of GANGADHAR KALITHA v. STATE OF ASSAM, reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of a civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of the process of law. He submits that a reading of the complainant and first information report discloses that the dispute is civil in nature, yet the complainant and the police have given it a criminal colour. Appellant No.1 is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question. The appellants are ready and willing to abide by any conditions this Court may impose.
7. The learned counsel produced the order dated 16th October, 2025, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1993 of 2025, in which this Court granted bail to appellants accused as Nos. 3 to 7. Hence, he submits that, on the principle of parity, these appellants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. -6- CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional SPP Smt. Asma Kauser, appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the trial court has properly appreciated the material on record and rejected the anticipatory bail application. She would submit that there are no grounds for interference in this appeal and hence, sought to dismissal the appeal.
9. Having heard on both sides, the point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether appellants have made out a Ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court?"
10. I have perused the materials placed before the court. On the basis of complaint filed by one Mahadevaswamy, Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.167 of 2025 against accused 1 to 10 for the offence punishable under sections 191, 417, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(f) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
11. The substance of FIR is as under:
"ಆ ಾ ಾನು ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸ ಾ ಾ ದು ಪ ಷ ಾ ೆ ೇ ದವ ಾ ರು#ೆ$ೕ ೆ. ಾನು ನನ% &ೆಂಡ &ಾಗೂ ನನ% ಅಣ+ ಅಣ+ನ &ೆಂಡ -7- CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025 ಮತು$ ನನ% ತಂ ೆ #ಾ. ಒ0ಾ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ12 ಾಸ ಾ ದು, 3ಾಮ4ಾಜನಗರ #ಾ®Æèಕು ಕಸ7ಾ &ೋಬ9 ಬದ£Àಗು:ೆ; ಾ<ಮ=ೆ ೇ ದ ಸ ೆ>ನಂ 504 ರ12, 4 ಎಕ4ೆ 27 ಗುಂ0ೆ ಜ@ೕನು ನಮ ೆ ೇ ದ A#ಾ<B>ತ ಜ@ೕ ಾ ರುತ$ ೆ ಸದ ಸCತು$ ನಮD ಮು#ಾತ ಾದ ಸುಬE FG ಕುನ%ಸುಬEಯI ರವರ &ೆಸ ೆ ಸ=ಾ>ರ ಮಂಜೂರು JಾKರುತ$ ೆ ಸದ ಸC $ನ12 ನಮD ಮು#ಾ$ತನು ಮರLಾನಂತರ ನಮD #ಾತನದ Mಕ ೇವಯI ಅವರ ಮರLಾನಂತರ ನಮD ತಂ ೆ ಮಹ ೇವಯI ಸದ ಸC $ನ ಾCOೕನ ಅನುಭವದ12ದು ವIವ ಾಯ JಾK=ೊಂಡು ಬಂQರು#ಾ$4ೆ ಅಸದ ಸCತು$ AR ಎS =ಾT ೆ ಒಳಪಡು $ದು ಸದ ಸCತ$ನು% ಾರೂ ಕೂಡ ಕ<ಯ=ೆ ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ ಇ#ಾIQ ಪರWಾ4ೇ Jಾಡುವಂ ಲ2 ಈ ದರೂ Q: 10.05.2022 ರಂದು ಬದನಗು:ೆ; ಾ<ಮದ ವ:ಾದಪ; ಎಂಬುವವರು ತಮD ಮಗ ಾದ ಚರZ ರವರ &ೆಸ ೆ ಅಕ<ಮ ಾ ಕ<ಯಪತ<ವನು% ಸೃ\ JಾKರು#ಾ$4ೆ, Q ಾಂಕ:
20.11.1970 ರ12 ನಮD ಮು#ಾ$ತ ಮರಣ &ೊಂQರು#ಾ$4ೆ. ಸದ 3ಾರ ೊ $ದರೂ ಸದ ಸCತು$ =ೆಐಎK ೆ ಾCOೕನ ಾ ದು &ೆM^ನ ಪ &ಾರ _ಗO ಾ ರುವ`ದ ಂದ ಸದ ಸCತ$ನು% &ೊaೆದು=ೊಳb7ೇ=ಾ ರುವ ದುರು ೇಶQಂದ ನಮD ಆ $ ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಂ#ೆ ನಕ1 ಾಖgೆಗಳನು% ಸೃ\ ಸh jf¸ÀÖgï ಕiೇ ಯ12 jೕ0ೋ #ೆ ೆ. , ಪತ< ಬರಹ ಾರರು ಸಹ ಈ ಬ ೆk 9Qದರೂ ಕೂಡ ಕ<ಯ ಪತ<ವನು% ಸೃ\ ರು#ಾ$4ೆ. &ಾಗೂ ಾl ಾರರ ಸm &ಾn ದು ಎಲ2ವನೂ% =ಾನೂನು 7ಾmರ ಾ ತ ಾ ಎಲ2ರೂ oಾ@ೕgಾ ಪ ಷ ಾ ಯವ4ಾದ ನಮ ೆ ಸ=ಾ>ರQಂಧ _ೕKರುವ ಭೂ@ಯನು% &ಾಗೂ ಸದ ಭೂ@ =ೆಐ.ಎ.K.F ೆ ಭೂ ಾCOೕನ ಾ ರುವ`ದ ಂದ ಪ &ಾರದ ಹಣವನು% ಕಬ9ಸುವ ದುರು ೇಶQಂದ ೕಲ ಂಡಂ#ೆ ಕ<ಯ ಪತ<ವನು% ಸೃ\ JಾK ನಮ ೆ ವಂಚ ೆ JಾK pೕಸ JಾKರು#ಾ$4ೆ, ಆದ ಂದ ೕಲ ಂಡವರುಗಳ ರುದq =ಾನೂನು ಕ<ಮವನು% #ೆ ೆದು=ೊಂಡು ನಮ ೆ ಾIಯ =ೊK =ೊಡ7ೇ=ೆಂದು ಇ#ಾIQ ಾ _ೕKದ ದೂ ನ ೕ4ೆ ೆ"
12. The appellant has produced a registered sale deed dated 10th May, 2022, a copy of the plaint pertaining to OS No.9 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, -8- CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025 Chamarajanagar, a copy of the interlocutory application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.9 of 2025, the statement of objections, and a copy of the RTC pertaining to the land in survey No. 504 of Badanaguppe village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk. A perusal of these materials makes it clear that there is a civil dispute regarding the land in survey No. 504 of Badanaguppe village.
13. In the case at hand, the prosecution has not placed any material to show why the investigating officer did not issue a notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023. Since a civil dispute is pending between the parties, at this stage, it is difficult to say that there is prima facie material to attract the alleged commission of the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The rest of the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the investigating officer, and the fact that this Court has granted bail to other accused persons, i.e., accused 3 to 7, in Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2025 on 16th October, 2025, it is just and proper to allow the appeal. Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the affirmative. -9- CRL.A No. 1999 of 2025
In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 18th September 2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.355 of 2025 and 355 of 2025 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara is set aside. Consequently application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed.
iii) Appellants/accused 1 and 2 shall be released on bail subject to executing a self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.167 of 2025 of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station;
iv) Appellants/accused 1 and 2 shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
v) Appellants/accused 1 and 2 shall assist the investigating officer in investigation.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn