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

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

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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;