c) Pass any other Order as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice and equity."
NC: 2025:KHC:3316
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the
material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that there
was a interse dispute between Sri.Srinivas Raju, Sri.Harish and
Sri.M.C.Nagaraju, in relation to immovable property bearing
Sy.No.52/3 of Maragondanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District, measuring 1 Acre 26 guntas, in
relation to which proceedings under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 was initiated and in an appeal filed before
the Assistant Commissioner, an order dated 25.02.2020 was
passed mutating the Katha/revenue records in favour of
Sri.Srinivas Raju and Sri.Harish, pursuant to which the revenue
records were mutated into their names.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant
Commissioner, the aggrieved party Sri.M.C.Nagaraju filed a
revision petition under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964, before the Deputy Commissioner, who
passed an order of status-quo dated 31.07.2023, which was
subsequently vacated on 20.07.2024. Meanwhile, the Deputy
NC: 2025:KHC:3316
Commissioner wrote a letter dated 10.09.2024 to the second
respondent inter alia contending that the petitioner who was
the Senior Sub-registrar had violated the aforesaid order of
status-quo dated 31.07.2023 and had illegally registered a Sale
Deed dated 13.03.2024 contrary to the interim order of
status-quo, thereby committing offence punishable under
Sections 166(a) 188, 406 and 420 IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned complaint, the petitioner is
before this court by way of present petition by placing reliance
upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this court in the
case of Sri.H.C.Lokesh v. State by Sub-inspector of Plice,
Hebbagodi Police Station and Another in
W.P.No.36724/2019 disposed of on 20.01.2022.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit
in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. A perusal of material on record will indicate that though
there was an interim order of status-quo passed 31.07.2023 by
the Deputy Commissioner, the said order is not shown to be
communicated to the petitioner-Senior Sub-registrar nor is
there anything to establish that the petitioner was aware or
NC: 2025:KHC:3316
knowledge about the said interim order of status-quo passed by
the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Under identical circumstances, H.C.Lokesh v. State
(supra), the Coordinate Bench of this court has held as under:
"Respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional
Magistrate alleging that the petitioner when working
as a Sub-Registrar, ignoring and violating the Court
order, colluding with the other accused, has
registered a illegal Sale Deed in favour of accused
Nos.3 to 12. The jurisdictional Magistrate referred
the matter to the jurisdictional police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The
police, after investigation, registered FIR against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
506, 420, 350, 465, 349, 503, 464,468, 425, 415,
416 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the present petition is
filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the only allegation against the petitioner
is that ignoring and violating the Court order he has
registered the sale deed in favour of accused Nos.3
to 12. Hence, the FIR does not disclose commission
of offence alleged against the petitioner and prays
for quashing of the FIR.
NC: 2025:KHC:3316
3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing
for the respondent No.1-State justifies the
registration of the FIR against the petitioner.
4. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
5. Perusal of the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 indicates that the only allegation
against the petitioner is that he has registered the
sale deed in favour of accused Nos.3 to 12 ignoring
and violating the Court order. Except the said
allegation, there is no other allegation against the
petitioner. The complaint also does not disclose that
the Court order was brought to the notice of the
petitioner at the time of registering the sale deed.
Even accepting the allegation made against the
petitioner, on the face of it the same would not
constitute commission of offence as alleged against
the petitioner. Hence, there is no material to suggest
that the petitioner has committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. Hence, the FIR registered against
the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:3316
The FIR dated 20.07.2019 in Crime
No.0275/2019 registered by respondent No.1-
Hebbagodi Police in so far as it relates to petitioner-
accused No.13 is hereby quashed."
9. As stated supra, in the absence of any material to
establish that the petitioner was aware or had knowledge of the
interim order of status-quo and that despite the same, the
petitioner had deliberately and intentionally registered the sale
deed dated 13.03.2024 contrary to the said interim order of
status-quo, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner
cannot be said to have committed any of the offences alleged
against him and consequently continuation of the impugned
proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offences
would amount to abuse of process of law warranting
interference in the present petition.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
a. The petition is hereby allowed.
b. The impugned proceedings in Crime No.
0335/2024 registered by the 1st Respondent-
NC: 2025:KHC:3316
Anekal Police under Section 166(a), 188, 406 and
420 IPC, now pending on the file of Principal Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC Court, Anekal, Bangalore
Rural District, are quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
NP
