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,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7188
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
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
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
CT;SI
