Karnataka High Court
Muppina Basavalinga Mahaswami Kottur ... vs Karnataka Lokayuktap.S. Ballari on 19 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104738 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MUPPINA BASAVALINGA MAHASWAMI KOTTUR
SWAMI MATH BELLARY
AGE 32 YEARS, OCC. PONTIFF,
R/O. SHRI KOTTUR SWAMI MATH,
BELLARY KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTAP.S. BALLARI
R/BY SPL.PP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
CHANDRASHEKAR 2. SANGAMESH S/O ISHWARAPPA
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR,
R/O. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA STATION,
BALLARI KARNATAKA 583 101.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Date: 2026.02.24 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 528 OF BNSS, 2023,
18:18:58 +0530
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.
05/2025 OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 13(1)(C)(D), R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT 1988
AND SEC. 13(1)(A) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT, 1988 (AMENDMENT 2018)
AND SEC. 120(B), 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC REGISTERED BY
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BALLARI WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL
COURT AND PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI
INSOFAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 4.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri Mallikarjunaswamy Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is shown as Accused No. 4 in Crime No.5/2025 registered by the Lokayukta Police, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC").
3. The gist of the complaint averments therein reveal that Ballari Viraktamath Noukarara Niyamita is in possession of the following lands situated at Sridhargadda:
SL. No. Survey No. measurements
1 39/A 35 acres 6 cents
2 39/C 4 acres 10 cents
3 40/A 15 acres 52 cents
4 40/C 24 acres 10 cents
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. Likewise, Kotturuswami Matta, Ballari, was in possession of lands situated at Sridhargadda in Survey No.41/A measuring 1 acre 20 cents and Survey No.41/C measuring 41 cents. An application was filed seeking transfer of the said lands in the name of Sangana Basava Swamigalu, Ballari.
5. Upon receipt of the said application, the Tahsildar, Ballari, namely Sri.Pramod, by an order dated 16.04.2016, entered the name of Jagadguru Sangana Basava Swamigalu, Ballari, in respect of lands totally measuring 78.78 acres, which are stated to be inam/government lands.
6. On 14.06.2021, Jagadguru Sangana Basava Swamigalu of Kottur Swami Matha executed a Will appointing the present petitioner as his successor. Upon the demise of Sangana Basava Swamigalu on 22.11.2021, the petitioner became his successor as per said Will.
7. On 18.04.2022, by filing an application, the petitioner sought transfer of the lands to his name pursuant to the Will executed by Sangana Basava Swamigalu. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. On 20.09.2022, Sri.H. Vishwanath, then Tahsildar of Ballari, entered the name of the present petitioner in Column No.9 of the RTC records.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have sold 24 acres 10 cents of land in Survey No.40/C of Sridharagadda Village in favour of Shreyas Gandhi and Smt.Radhika for a total consideration of Rs. 84,35,000/- under a registered sale deed.
10. According to the complainant, the lands did not belong to Kotturu Swamy Matha, and the revenue records were allegedly manipulated by the revenue officials in active collusion with the previous Swamiji of Kotturu Swamy Matha. Therefore, action was sought against the concerned persons.
11. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered by the Lokayukta Police and is presently under investigation.
12. The petitioner has called in question the very registration of the case on the following grounds: -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR The impugned proceedings are the abuse of process and the FIR is registered against the petitioner without any allegation or material as such the same is liable to be quashed.
The property was standing in the name of Jagadguru Sanganabasava Swamiji of Kotturmath as owner and it has been reflected in the RTC column No.12 of Survey No.40C and after his demise the name of the petitioner came to be entered as he was the successor of the Kotturmath. In the said RoR there was pokal entry in Column No.9 relating to Viraktamath Noukarara Niyamita without any basis. The Copy of the RTC is marked and produced as Annexure E. Even the entire complaint take into consideration no offence will be made out against the petitioner as after the demise of Jagadguru Sanganabasava Swami of Kotturmath on 22.11.2021 as per his Will the petitioner became the successor and was promoted as high priest of the Kotturmath in order to accomplish the word of Jagadguru Sanganabasava Swami, petitioner executed two Sale Deed on 15.11.2022 in favour of P.Radika W/o Payyayula Radhakrishna by the dividing the Survey 40/C into two parts measuring 12 acres 05 guntas and 12 acres 05 guntas of land situated at Sridhargadda Village Bellary District in total 24 acres 10 guntas.
The allegation made in the complaint is relating to the dispute regarding ownership, title, possession and inheritance these are the disputes which are purely civil in nature. There is aboslutely no acts of criminality -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR involved. Hence the allegation made in the entire complaint is purely civil in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings without any adjudication of rights over the property is nothing but abuse process of law. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v.
State of Bihar has clearly held in Para 23:
When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint."
In the present case it is impossible to understand how the petitioner deceived the respondent No.2 and how the act of execution of sale deeds by the petitioner caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the respondent No.2 in body, mind, reputation or property. The petitioner has not purported to execute the sale deed on behalf of the respondent No.2. He has not purported to transfer the rights of the respondent No.2. There is no allegation that the petitioner deceived the 2nd respondent to transfer or deliver the subject property.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR Even taking the complaint as correct, the offence of Cheating under alleged offences is not made out against the petitioner, moreover the complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 for the first time after the lapse of 9 years from the date of Order of Tahsildar of Bellary. When there is a dispute over the title, the act of the respondent No.2 of setting in motion criminal law 9 years after the date of the Order passed by tahsildar amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.
The allegation of land having stood vested with the Government is without any basis and the name of government was never entered in the RoR post the coming into force of Certain Inam Abolition Act. Hence the allegation of land being sold illegally is a farce and made to falsely ruin the name of petitioner at the instance of some persons who have vested interest in the affairs of math. Infact Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977 is not applicable so as to invoke Section 4 of the Act as the Devadaya Inam is not included within the purview of Section 2 of the said Act.
13. Sri M.B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the petitioner has not utilized any part of the sale consideration for his personal benefit.
14. He further submits that the entire amount was transferred to the account of the Matha and has been -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR utilized for the activities of the Matha, including feeding poor children and imparting education by running a 'Kannada school'.
15. He would further contend that the petitioner is admittedly the successor of Sangana Basava Swamigalu of Kotturu Swamy Matha by virtue of the Will executed by the said Swamiji. Therefore, he had not taken part in any of the activities alleged in the complaint, inasmuch as the revenue entries had already been transferred to the name of Sangana Basava Swamigalu.
16. At the most, the present petitioner could only be a witness, having acted under the Will and having submitted an application for transfer of revenue entries in terms of the Will executed by Sangana Basava Swamigalu in respect of the lands possessed by Kotturuswami Matta and Ballari Viraktamath Noukarara Niyamita.
17. He would also contend that the very registration of the case against the petitioner is thus erroneous, as he had no role whatsoever in the alleged transfer of entries. After becoming the successor of Kotturuswami Matta, in the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR usual course, to facilitate payment of revenue, he filed an application seeking transfer of revenue entries from the name of Sangana Basava Swamigalu to his own name in Column No.9 of the RTC which has not resulted in any offence and thus sought for allowing of the petition.
18. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has filed a memo along with documents to indicate that no amount from the sale consideration was utilized by the petitioner for personal purposes and that the entire amount was transferred to the accounts of the Matha.
19. Per contra, Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel, by filing detailed objections to the petition, contended that the property in question is inam land vested in the Government and that the same has been misappropriated by the petitioner and others in active collusion by creating and manipulating records. Therefore, there is no scope for quashing the pending FIR.
20. Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel would further contend that this is not one of such cases warranting exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,/
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, 'the BNSS') to quash the FIR. The petitioner can cooperate with the investigation, and if the investigating agency does not find any material against him, an appropriate report would be filed. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
21. He would also contend that the petitioner, being the successor of Sangana Basava Swamigalu of Kotturuswami Matta, had no authority to sell the land in Survey No. 40/C of Sridharagadda Village in favour of Shreyas Gandhi and Smt.Radhika. As such, the petitioner has a role in the misappropriation of Government property and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
22. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. On such perusal, the complaint itself indicates that the revenue entries were mutated in the name of Sangana Basava Swamigalu pursuant to an application, and an order came to be passed on 16.04.2016 transferring the revenue entries in his favour in respect of Kotturuswami Matta.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR
23. The complaint came to be filed only on 08.10.2024. In other words, no action was taken by any of the authorities on and from 16.04.2016 till 08.10.2024, in respect of transfer of revenue entries.
24. It is also not in dispute that Sangana Basava Swamigalu executed a Will and died on 22.11.2021. Based on the said Will, the present petitioner became the Peethadhipathi of Kotturuswami Matta. After assuming charge of the Matha, petitioner in the usual course sought transfer of revenue entries by filing an application before the Tahsildar on 18.04.2022. The then Tahsildar, H. Vishwanath, upon consideration of the relevant documents, passed an order directing transfer of the revenue entries standing in the name of Sangana Basava Swamigalu to the name of the present petitioner. Thereafter taxes has been paid by petitioner.
25. Thus, when the order dated 16.04.2016 was passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the affairs of Kotturu Swamy Matha.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR
26. By virtue of the Will executed by Sangana Basava Swamigalu, he became the successor of the Matha and, in the usuasl course, filed an application for transfer of revenue entries. Therefore, no mala fides or criminal intention can be attributed to the petitioner.
27. After becoming the successor and person in charge of the properties of the Matha, he sold land in Survey No.40/C of Sridharagadda Village measuring 24 acres 10 cents in favour of Shreyas Gandhi and Smt.Radhika under a registered sale deed. The sale consideration received has been transferred to the accounts of the Matha and is stated to have been utilized for the welfare of the Matha, including imparting education to children, as the Matha is running a Kannada school.
28. Irrespective of the activities of the Matha, prima facie, no criminality is involved in filing an application seeking transfer of revenue entries after the petitioner became the successor of Sangana Basava Swamigalu.
29. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for quashing of the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631 CRL.P No. 104738 of 2025 HC-KAR pending FIR, as no material is available to establish that the petitioner has committed fraud or misappropriated Government or inam land.
30. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The pending proceedings in Crime No.05/2025 registered by the Lokayukta Police, Ballari, insofar as it relate to the present petitioner (Accused No. 4), is hereby quashed.
iii. It is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency, if required, in the capacity of a witness.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 67