[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2631
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
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
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
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
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
