Karnataka High Court
Santosha Kumar Dikshit vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201659 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SANTHOSHA KUMAR DIKSHIT,
S/O ARYAMUNI DIXIT,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: INSURANCE ADVISOR,
R/O HOUSE NO.13-7-324,
YERMARUS DANDU,
RAICHUR-584102.
2. ARYAMUNI DIXIT S/O RAMLAL DIXIT,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED GOVT. TEACHER,
Digitally signed R/O HOUSE NO.13-7-326,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
YERMARUS DANDU
COURT OF RAICHUR-584102.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
(THORUGH RAICHUR RURAL P.S.
DIST. RAICHUR-584103).
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SHIVASHANKAR S/O NARASAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE OFFICER,
R/O H.NO.1-11-153/2,
SANJIVINI NAGAR,
RAICHUR.
TALUK AND DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS, UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.164/2025 REGISTERED BY THE
RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 336(3), 329(3) READ WITH
SEC 3(5) OF BNSS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC AT RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned petition is by the accused persons seeking to quashing of the FIR in Crime No.164/2025 registered by the Raichur Rural Police Station, Dist: Raichur for the offence punishable under sections 336(3), 329(3) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (JR.DN) and JMFC Court, at Raichur.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The Revenue Inspector has lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners, on the strength of concocted documents, have illegally put up a residential construction on land purportedly belonging to the Government. On this premise, it is alleged that the petitioners have committed the offences of forgery and trespass, which has culminated in the registration of Crime No.164/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 329(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the proceedings. It is their specific contention that they are the lawful owners in possession of the property, and despite the decree in O.S. No.86/2019 declaring them as -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR absolute owners, the Revenue Inspector has falsely lodged the present complaint.
4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the competent Civil Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although a regular appeal in R.A. No.13/2025 preferred by the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Raichur is pending, the second respondent, who has even filed an application in the pending appeal and is fully aware of the decree in O.S. No.86/2019 has nevertheless proceeded to lodge the complaint on 02.09.2025. It is therefore urged that the initiation of criminal proceedings is actuated by mala fides and constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law. He further adverts to an earlier attempt made by the Government to unsettle the petitioners' rights, which was dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.223621/2020.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to justify the action of the Revenue Inspector, contending that the petitioners are attempting -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR to encroach upon Government land. According to him, the civil court decree relied upon by the petitioners does not bind the State, and therefore no interference is warranted at this stage.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, adopting the submissions of the learned Additional SPP, contends that initiation of criminal proceedings was necessitated in the present circumstances. He submits that the allegations require a thorough investigation and that the investigative process ought not to be interdicted by this Court at this juncture.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional SPP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also carefully perused the records.
8. The case on hand reveals a disturbing trend. Citizens, despite securing a decree from a competent Civil Court declaring them to be absolute owners in possession, -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR are being subjected to intimidation by revenue authorities through recourse to criminal law. The present case is a classic example wherein, despite the first petitioner having been declared the absolute owner of the disputed property and despite an injunction operating against the City Municipal Council, Raichur, the State has now stepped in asserting title over the same property. Notably, in the civil suit, the stand consistently taken was that the Corporation, and not the State, was the owner of the property.
9. Before adverting further, it is apposite to extract the issues framed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.86/2019, which read as follows:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the absolute owner of the suit property?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the Court fee paid is true and correct?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant No.1 and 2?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. What order or decree?"
10. This Court also deemed it fit to extract the decree granted by the Court in OS No.86/2019, which reads as under:
"ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs. It is hereby declared that plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule property.
Consequently, defendants No.1 and 2 their men, agents, servants, legal heirs etc., are hereby restrained from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property by way of permanent Injunction."
11. On a careful examination of the decree, it is manifest that the first petitioner has been unequivocally declared as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. In consequence, the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Raichur, as well as one Narasimhalu, have been restrained from interfering with -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR the petitioners' peaceful possession. Despite the existence of a valid and subsisting decree of a competent Civil Court, the second respondent/Revenue Inspector has chosen to invoke the police machinery with the intent of intimidating the petitioners, who are armed with a judicial determination affirming their title and possession.
12. The record further discloses that the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner themselves have filed an impleading application in the pending appeal, thereby clearly demonstrating that the revenue authorities were fully aware of the decree in O.S. No.86/2019. Once the revenue authorities had knowledge of the decree, their subsequent act of initiating criminal proceedings alleging trespass amounts to a direct challenge to the judicial determination already rendered by the competent Civil Court. When the title of the first petitioner stands conclusively adjudicated, the allegation of criminal trespass cannot be sustained at the instance of the State or its officers. Revenue authorities cannot claim a position -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR superior to that of Civil Courts; decrees passed by Civil Courts bind all authorities, irrespective of rank or hierarchy.
13. The conduct of the second respondent, whether acting independently or at the behest of his superiors, deserves to be strongly deprecated. Initiating a criminal prosecution as a means to circumvent or dilute the effect of a judicial decree is wholly impermissible and strikes at the root of the rule of law. If the State was genuinely aggrieved by the decree passed in O.S. No.86/2019, the law provides an appropriate remedy namely, to seek leave and prefer an independent appeal. Instead of adopting the legal course mandated by law and expected of a State authority, the revenue officials have chosen a shortcut by initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners who stand declared as absolute owners.
14. Such an action is not only unfair and arbitrary but also amounts to gross abuse of the criminal process. Continuation of these proceedings, in the face of an
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188 CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025 HC-KAR unchallenged civil decree in favour of the petitioners, would perpetuate an injustice and undermine public faith in judicial institutions. This Court is therefore constrained to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent the misuse of criminal law and to reinforce the obligation of revenue authorities to respect and abide by decrees of competent Civil Courts unless the same are stayed or set aside in lawful proceedings.
15. Accordingly, this Court finds that the case on hand is a fit one for quashing the proceedings not only to secure the ends of justice but also to send a clear message to revenue officials that judicial decrees are to be complied with, and not circumvented through intimidation or misuse of criminal prosecution.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
CRL.P No. 201659 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The FIR in Crime No.164/2025 registered by Raichur Rural Police Station, District Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 329(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and presently pending before the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Raichur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15 CT;SI