[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 03.03.2026
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.143 OF 2026 (GM -RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SRI RAVI SHANKAR
S/O LATE R.S.V RATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT PANCHAGIRI ASHRAM
VEDA VIGNAM MAHA VIDYA PEETA
(VVMP), UDAYAPURA HALLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 082
SHOWN IN FIR AS SRI RAVI SHANKAR
ART OF LIVING ASHRAM
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TASK FORCE POLICE STATION (BMTF)
BENGALURU CITY
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . LAKSHMAN GOWDA S.,
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BENGALURU OFFICE OF BENGALURU
METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE
POLICE STATION (BMTFF)
BENGALURU CITY
BBMP HEAD OFFICE BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.A.BELLIAPPA, SPP-I A/W
SRI THEJESH P, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CRIME NO.201/2025 DATED 19.09.2025 THE RESPONDENTS/BMTF
POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 192A OF
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 INSOFAR AS THE
PTITIONER HEREIN/1ST ACCUSED IS CONCERNED (PRODUCED
VIDE ANNEXURE 'E AND E1' TO THE WRIT PETITION.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.201 of 2025 registered for
offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel along with
Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Sri B.A.Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing
for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner claims to be the founder of Art of Living
Foundation and a renowned spiritual leader propagating human
4
values through several yogic procedures such as meditation,
Sudarshan Kriya and also known as peace ambassador in India and
worldwide. The genesis of the present petition emerges from a
petition filed by one Chandrasekaran N and others in Writ Petition
No.15264 of 2023, a petition filed in public interest with a prayer to
direct the State to consider the representations of the petitioners
therein and to demolish the apartments constructed allegedly
encroaching Government land. The petitioner was arrayed as party
respondent No.5 in the said petition. The petitioner then is said to
have filed an application seeking to dismiss the petition, at least
insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on the score that he did not
own any piece of land in the survey numbers that were alleged to
be encroached. The Division Bench considering the fact that the writ
petition was only for a direction to respondent/State to consider the
representation, took note of the memo filed by the learned
Government Advocate and disposed of the petition on 09-09-2005
directing the State to take action against the encroachers, if
situation warrants. Proceedings on the very same subject matter
was brought up before the Court constituted to tackle land
5
grabbing, in LGC(P) No. 23 of 2024 against Sri Sumeru Realty
Private Limited.
3.2. When things stood thus, the Inspector of Police of the
Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force ('BMTF') registered a suo-motu
complaint on 19-09-2025, allegedly based on the report of the
Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. It is alleged in the aforesaid First
Information Report that the petitioner and 4 others have
encroached Government land, lake and Rajakaluve in Sy.Nos. 160,
164/1, 164/2, 150, 137, 135 and 46 situated at Kaggalipura
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Except naming the
petitioner in the complaint there is no other indication of any wrong
doing on the part of the petitioner that would become ingredients of
Section 192-A of the Act. Pursuant to registration of crime in Crime
No.201 of 2025, a notice comes to be issued by the Police on
18-12-2025, in exercise of power under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
The said police notice is addressed to the 2nd accused against whom
the allegation of encroachment has been made. The issuance of
notice has driven the present petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition.
6
4. The learned senior counsel Sri S.Sriranga and the learned
counsel Sri P.Prasanna Kumar appearing for the petitioner would in
unison vehemently contend that on a reading of the entire
complaint it can be noticed that not even a word is mentioned
about role of the petitioner in the alleged encroachment of
Government land which would become the ingredient of Section
192-A. The only reason for adding the name of the petitioner as
accused No.1 appears to be on the fact that the petitioner was
arrayed as a respondent in a public interest petition filed by three
individuals, which comes to be disposed on 09-09-2025. Even in the
LGC proceedings instituted before the Land Grabbing Court, the
entire allegation is against one Sri Sumeru Realty. Therefore,
without any reason or rhyme and without there being any
ingredient of the offence under Section 192-A of the Act, the
petitioner is dragged into the web of crime. The FIR, therefore, is
based solely on the proceedings before the Special Court for land
grabbing. The genesis of the entire proceedings is on a report filed
by the Tahsildar before the Court hearing the case of land grabbing.
Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that if the complaint is
7
permitted to be investigated into, it would become an abuse of the
process of law.
5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor-I
Sri B A Belliappa appearing for the State, would vehemently refute
the submissions by taking this Court through the detailed statement
of objections filed, contending that the petitioner is the face of
everything. Therefore, it is a matter to be investigated into, as to
whether the petitioner is involved in the act of encroachment of the
land. He would seek to place reliance on the judgment rendered by
the coordinate Bench, which is affirmed by the Apex Court, to
contend that the petitioner is the face of everything in the
foundation. He would contend that the matter is still at the stage of
investigation. During the investigation it may emerge that the role
of the petitioner is larger than what is found now. The investigation
thus must be permitted to be continued. He would submit that the
Division Bench was clear in directing that the matter must be
looked into/enquired into. If interference would come about by the
hands of this Court at this juncture, it would run foul of the
judgment of the Division Bench. He would, therefore, seek
dismissal of the petition leaving open all remedies available to the
8
petitioner to avail of, at the relevant point in time. He would seek to
place reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of
(i) SOMJEET MALLICK v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [(2024) 10
SCC 527] (ii) GULAM MUSTAFA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[(2023) 18 SCC 265] and (iii) NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE
PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A public
interest petition was preferred by three persons in Writ Petition
No.15264 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the petitioner is
arrayed as respondent No.5. The cause title is as follows:
"Between:
1. Sri. Chandrashekar N,
S/O Late Narayanappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/a.no.25/1, Udipalya Village and Post,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 082.
1
(2021) 19 SCC 401
9
2. Sri. Mahesh. B,
S/O. Late Bettegowda,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a.Udipalya Village,
Udayapura Post,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 082.
3. Sri. Muniraju.H.S.
S/o late. Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/a.Salunse Village,
Udayapura Post,
Bangalore South Taluk
Bangalore - 560 082,
.. PETITIONERS
AND:
1. ... ... ...
5. Sri Ravi Shankar Guruji,
Art of Living Ashram,
Aged About 43 Years,
Udayapura Village & post,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 082.
... ... ... ... RESPONDENTS"
(Emphasis added)
The petition comes to be disposed of by the Division Bench by the
following order:
"ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
"1. The petitioners have filed the present petition as a Public
Interest Litigation petition, inter-alia, praying as below:
"Wherefore, the Petitioners most respectfully pray that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :
i) Issue directions to the Respondents No.1 to 4 consider
the Annexure-'A' representation/notice dated
21.02.2023 and Annexure-'E' dated 08.10.2022 by way
of Writ of Mandamus;
ii) Issue directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 to
demolish the Apartments in Government Lands, Lake,
Rajakaluve in Sy.No.160, 164/1, 164/2, 150 and 137,
situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore- 560082, constructed
by the respondent No.5 to 9 by way of writ of
mandamus;
iii) To pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the
interests of justice and equity."
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondents-State has filed a memo enclosing therewith a Map
which supports the petitioners' contention that certain
unauthorized constructions have been raised by encroaching
public land which also comprises Raja Kaluve. The Map indicates
that certain constructions have been raised in Sy.No.164/2;
163/3,161/7 and 160 of Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. Additionally, a large part of Survey No.
150 which is indicated to be a tank has also been encroached.
3. In view of the Government's stance that in fact there has
been encroachment on public lands, we consider it apposite to
dispose of the present petition by directing respondent Nos.1 to
3 to take such action against encroachers as is warranted, albeit
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
.... .... ...."
The Division Bench records a memo enclosing a map which is said
to have supported the petitioners' contention that unauthorized
constructions have been raised by encroaching upon public land
which also includes Rajakalulve. The Division Bench directs that in
view of the Government's stance that in fact there has been
encroachment on public road, the Bench would consider it
appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the respondents 1
to 3 to take such action against encroachers as is warranted in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The petition is
disposed of on 9th September, 2025. By then, projecting the same
allegations, one Mr. Manjunath M., had preferred a complaint before
the Special Court constituted to tackle land grabbing under the
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The facts and the
prayer before the Land Grabbing Court including the schedule is as
follows:
".... .... ....
1. FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Land bearing Sy.No.164/1, measuring, Rajaklaluve, situated
at Udipalya village, Kaggalipura village panchayathi, Udipura,
Bengaluru as per the RTC and mutation issued by the concerned
authority which is belongs to the Opposite party. The said
Rajakaluve was left by the Government for the use of general
public in between Sy.No.161 to 164 and the same is reflecting in
Dishank and also in the village map, but the opposite party by
encroaching the same and constructing the Sowdamini
Apartment illegally in the said Rajakaluve by putting up
apartment illegally without obtaining any documentary
evidence. The said act of the opposite parties is against to the
law and the opposite parties are liable to be punished under the
act. In the said Rajakaluve was the use of general public for the
use of drainage water and the same was cleaned and
constructing the Badminton Court illegally by the opposite
parties.
2(a) LAND VALUE: Present market value is more than One
Crore Rupees.
2(b) Whether is there any house or building on the land,
they belongs to whom, How they have acquired and the
value of the land:
The Opposite parties acquired the said land illegally and
constructing the Sowdamini Apartment on the land - put up
already a shed and sheet wall.
3. REASON FOR DISPUTE:
The Sy.No.164/1, Rajaklaluve, situated at Udipalya village,
Kaggalipura village panchayathi, Udipura, Bengaluru. Out of the
said Rajakaluve as per the RTC and mutation issued by the
concerned authority which clearly establishes Rajakaluve which
was left by the Government for the use of general public, but
the opposite party constructing the Sowdamini Apartment
illegally and already constructed the apartment without
obtaining any documentary evident. The said act of the opposite
parties is against to the law and the opposite parties are liable
to be punished under the act. In the said Rajakaluve is the use
of drainage water channel and the same was cleaned and
constructing the Sowdamini apartment illegally by the opposite
parties. This was the cause and reason for dispute.
4.JURISDICTION:
The property is situated at situated at Thurahalli village,
Udipalya village, Kaggalipura village panchayathi, Udipalya,
5.K.m. far from BBMP limits Bengaluru is having ample
jurisdiction to try the above case.
5. COURT FEE:
The requisite court fee is paid on the complaint as per valuation
slip annexed to the complaint.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Complainant humbly pray that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to register the Complaint,
secure the presence of the opposite party and stringent action
to be taken against the opposite party and direct the opposite
party to remove Sowdamini Apartment and direct not to
construct any building since the same left for use of general
public by the Government which has been illegally occupied and
constructing and to leave the same for general public as
Rajakaluve and grant permanent injunction restraining the
opposite parties not to put up any constructions and to demolish
the existing constructions already put up by the opposite party
by encroaching the Rajakaluve on the schedule property, in the
interest of justice.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the Sy.No.164/1, Rajakaluve,
situated at Udipalya village, Kaggalipura village panchayathi,
Udipura, Bengaluru
East by : Property of Sabakhan
West by : Road and property of Uttam Bhandari
North by : Road
South by : Property of Sandeep
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for Applicant Applicant"
The proceedings are subsisting and continued before the Land
Grabbing Court. Therefore, the complainant before the Land
Grabbing Court projects pendency of the case before the Division
Bench on the same cause of action. Since the Division Bench has
granted permission to take action against the alleged encroachers,
a suo motu complaint comes to be registered by the Inspector
attached to the BMTF. The complaint reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ,
ಾ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾಯ ಚರ ೆ ಪ ೆ,
( ೆ ೕಟ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾ ಾರ) !"ೕ# ಾ ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ಇಂದ,
ಲ'(ಣ ೌಡ.ಎ#.
!"ೕ# ಇ-.ೆ/ಕ1 ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾಯ ಚರ ೆ ಪ ೆ,
( ೆ ೕಟ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾ ಾರ) !"ೕ# ಾ ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
2ಷಯ:- ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲು;ಕು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರ ಕ<ೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?,
ಎ- @ ಆ (ಉ)@.ಆ /93/21-22 F:14-03-2025 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
ªÀgÀ¢ DzsÁjvÀ ಮತುG ಭೂ Jಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ರವರು LೕNರುವ ಸOೇ .ೆPQ ಅನSಯ ಪ ಕರಣ Jಾಖ"ಸುವಂ:ೆ
ೋ ,
*****
Tಾನ? ಅಪರ !"ೕ# ಮ ಾLJೇ ಶಕರು ರವರ ಕ<ೇ Uಂದ ಬಂದ ಟ ಾWನುX
ಪ 6ೕ"ಸ7ಾY ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ Z7ೆ;, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ಉತGರಹ[\ ೋಬ[,
ಕಗ]"ೕಪ^ರ ಾ ಮದ ಸOೇ ನಂಬ ಗ_ಾದ 160, 164/1, 164/2, 150, 137, 135 ಮತುG 46 ಗಳ";
ಸ ಾ `ಾಗ, ೆaೆ, aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆ, Lೕರು ಹ ಯುವ ಹಳ\ ಾಗೂ ಇತaೆ ಸ ಾ `ಾಗವನುX ಒತುGವ
TಾN ೊಂಡು ವಸd ಸಮುಚeಯ ಾಗೂ ಕಟ1ಡಗಳನುX LTಾ ಣ TಾNರುವ 1). 6 ೕ. ರ2ಶಂಕ
ಗುರೂZ, ಆf ಆg "2ಂh 2) 6 ೕ. ರಘj ಅವkಾL 3). 6 ೕ. FSಗಜಯ lೌಧ , 4). ಉತGn ಚಂo
ಭಂ ಾ 5). p| ಸುpೕರು ೊ;ೕಬW ಸ!ೕf ಸಲೂ?ಷ- ೆqOೇf "rst ರವರುಗಳ 2ರುದ8
ಾನೂನು ೕdಯ ಕ ಮವನುX ೈ ೊಳ\ ೇ ೆಂದು LೕNದ ದೂರು v.ಎಂ.s.ಎgನ";
ನಂ.ಎNZw/vಎಂsಎg/wsಷ-/138/2022 ರಂ:ೆ Jಾಖ7ಾYರುತGJೆ.
Fxಾಂಕ:29-03-2022 ರಂದು 6 ೕ. ಉತGn ಚಂo ಭಂ ಾ v- ಅನaಾy ಭಂ ಾ
ೇ/ಆf ಆg "ೕ2ಂh ಇಂಟ xಾ?zನW .ೆಂಟ ಸುpೕರು {ಾ"s ೆq.". ಉದಯಪ^ರ ಾ ಮ,
ಕನಕಪ^ರ pೖ- ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ರಘj ಅವkಾL ೇ/ಆf ಆg "ೕ2ಂh ಇಂಟ xಾ?zನW .ೆಂಟ
ಉದಯಪ^ರ ಾ ಮ, ಕನಕಪ^ರ pೖ- ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಮತುG pೕ|| ಸುpೕರು ೊ;ೕಬW ಸ!ೕf
ಸಲೂ?ಷ- ೆq.". ತುಳ@ ಾW ೇf, ನಂ.2 ಎದುರುಗ ೆ ೇ/ಆf "ೕ2ಂh ಇಂಟ xಾ?zನW
.ೆಂಟ ಉದಯಪ^ರ ಾ ಮ, ಕನಕಪ^ರ pೖ- ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವ ೆ ಸದ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ
ದೃ~ೕಕೃತ Jಾಖ7ೆಗ_ೆ ಂF ೆ ಾಜaಾಗುವಂ:ೆ !"ೕ# xೊsೕ# `ಾ Tಾಡ7ಾYರುತGJೆ
Fxಾಂಕ:30-05-2022, 14-09-2022, 08-10-2022, 08-10-2022, 21-12-2022,
27-12-2023, 04-12-2024 ಮತುG 20-12-2024 ರಂದು ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ Z7ೆ;,
ರವ ೆ ಸದ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ ಸ ಾ `ಾಗ, aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆ ಾಗೂ ೆaೆ `ಾಗ
ಒತುGವ {ಾYJೆ•ೕ? ಅಥOಾ ಇಲ;Oೇ? ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆ] ಾಗೂ ಸSdGನ ದೃ~ೕಕೃತ Jಾಖ7ೆಗ_ೆ ಂF ೆ
ಾಜaಾಗುವಂ:ೆ ಪತ ರOಾxೆ Tಾಡ7ಾYರುತGJೆ. ಮತುG ಭೂ Jಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವ ೆ ಸದ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ ಸ ಾ `ಾಗ,
aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆ ಾಗೂ ೆaೆ `ಾಗ ಒತುGವ {ಾYJೆ•ೕ? ಅಥOಾ ಇಲ;Oೇ? ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆ] ಸOೇ
TಾN@ ಸOೇ ¸ÉÌÃQxೊಂF ೆ ವರF ಾಗೂ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ ಕೂಲಕಂಷOಾY ಪ 6ೕ"@
ಸSdGನ sಪ/•, ಅ‚ಾ;#, ಆ ಾ ಬಂo, ಮತುG ಇLXತರ ಧೃ~ೕಕೃತ ಪ dಗ_ೆ ಂF ೆ ಾಜaಾಗುವಂ:ೆ
ಪತ ರOಾxೆ Tಾಡ7ಾYರುತGJೆ.
ಸದ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ 6 ೕ. ಸುpೕರು {ಾ"s ೆqOೇf "r‚ೆt ಸಂ.ೆƒಯ
ಪರOಾY ಕಂಪLಯ Tಾ?xೇಜ ರವರು ಾಜaಾY ಸದ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ ಸSdGನ ಕ ಯಪತ ದ
ಪ d, >ಾತ ಪ Tಾಣ ಪತ ದ ಪ d, ಸSdGನ ಋಣ...ಾರaಾ†ತ? ಪ Tಾಣ ಪತ ಪ d, ಾ ಮ ನ ಾ‡ೆಯ
ಪ d, ಮುmÉåÃಷ-ಪ d, Z7ಾ; ಾ ಗಳ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ Z7ೆ; ರವ ಂದ ಪ ೆFರುವ
ಪ ವತ xೆ{ಾYರುವ ಆJೇಶದ ಪ d, ಆ .s.@. ಪ dಗಳ , ಸSdGನ ಾ ರಂˆಕ ಪ Tಾಣ ಪತ ದ
ಪ dಗಳನುX ಾಜರು ಪN@ರು:ಾGaೆ.
ಸದ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ ಈ ಾಗ7ೇ ನಂ.vಎಂsಎg
ನಂ vಎಂsಎg /ಎNZw
ಎNZw/wsಷ-
ಎNZw wsಷ-/503/2019
wsಷ-
ರ ಅNಯ"; 6 ೕ. ಪ ಾಶ aೆNŠ !"ೕ# ಇ-.ೆ/ಕ1 ರವರು 2lಾರ ೆಯನುX ೈ ೊಂಡು ಸದ ದೂರು
ಅZ ಯನುX pೕಲPಂಡ ದೂರು ಅZ ೆ pೕ7ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ಅನು‹ೕದxೆ ಪ ೆದು ಅಡಕ ೊ[@ರು:ಾGaೆ.
ನಂ.vಎಂsಎg
ನಂ vಎಂsಎg/ಎNZw
vಎಂsಎg ಎNZw/wsಷ-
ಎNZw wsಷ-/93/2021
wsಷ- ರ ಅNಯ"; 6 ೕ.Œೕ ೇ• >ಾನ ೌಡ
!"ೕ# ಸŽ ಇ-.ೆ/ಕ1 ರವರು 2lಾರ ೆಯನುX ೈ ೊಂಡು ಸದ ದೂರು ಅZ ಯನುX pೕಲPಂಡ
ದೂರು ಅZ ೆ pೕ7ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ಅನು‹ೕದxೆ ಪ ೆದು ಅಡಕ ೊ[@ರು:ಾGaೆ.
ನಂ.vಎಂsಎg
ನಂ vಎಂsಎg/ಎNZw
vಎಂsಎg ಎNZw/wsಷ-
ಎNZw wsಷ-/809/2023
wsಷ- ರ ಅNಯ"; Tಾನ? !"ೕ#
ಉ ಾ ೕ'ಕರವರು 2lಾರ ೆಯನುX ೈ ೊಂಡು ಸದ ದೂರು ಅZ ಯನುX pೕಲPಂಡ ದೂರು ಅZ ೆ
pೕ7ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ಅನು‹ೕದxೆ ಪ ೆದು ಅಡಕ ೊ[@ರು:ಾGaೆ.
Fxಾಂಕ:15-04-2025 ರಂದು @/ೕt !ೕ#1 ಮು>ಾಂತರ ಬಂದ ಪತ ವನುX ಪ 6ೕ"ಸ7ಾY
ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲು;ಕು,
ು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರ ಕ<ೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?,
ಸಂ>ೆ? ಎ- @ ಆ
ಉ)@.ಆ /93/21-22 F:14-03-2025 gÀAvÉ
(ಉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À
ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ರವರು LೕNರುವ ಸOೇ ¸ÉÌÃQ ಸದ ಸS:ಾGದ
ಕಗ]"ೕಪ^ರ ಾ ಮದ ಸOೇ ನಂ.46, 150 ಾಗೂ v.ಎಂ. ಾವW ಾ ಮದ ಸOೇ ಗಳ ಜrೕನುಗ[ ೆ
ೊಂF ೊಡಂ:ೆ ಇರುವ ಸ ಾ ಜrೕನುಗಳ ಒತುGವ ಬ ೆ] ಸOೇ ಾಯ ೈ ೊಂNದು8, Tಾನ?
ಘನ ಭೂ ಕಬ[ ೆ L‡ೇದ 2•ೇಷ xಾ?{ಾಲಯ ಪ ಕರಣ ಸಂ>ೆ?. ಎW.Z.@.ನಂ.23/2024 ರಂ:ೆ
ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ರವರ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?. ಎ-.@.ಆ . ನಂ.23/2004 ರಂ:ೆ ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?.
ಎ-.@.ಆ .(ಉ)/@ಆ /213/23-24 ಾಗೂ ಭೂ Jಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು ರವರ ಕ<ೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ? ಭೂಸL/wಆ /ಇ-105554/2024-25 ರ F:29-01-
2024 ರಂ:ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ1 d[@ jÃಸ.ನಂ.164/1, 164/2, 163/3, 161/7, 160, ಮತುG 166ನುX
ಅಳ:ೆ ೆಲಸ Lವ †@ ನ•ೆ ವರFಯನುX ತ{ಾ @Jೆ.
ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2 "; ಸುpೕರು {ಾ"s ೆq. "r‚ೆt ಸಂ.ೆƒಯವರು ಾ;' ನಂ.1 ಾ;'
ನಂ.2. ಾ;' ನಂ.3 ರ"; ಒಟು1 0-8 1/4 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಪ Jೇಶದ"; ವಸd ಸಮುಚ'ಯವನುX
Lವ †@ ೊಂNರು:ಾGaೆ. ಸOೇ ನಂ.163/3 ರ"; 6 ೕಮd ಾನುಮd v- ಆ .ಎ#. ರತXಂ ರವರು
0-02 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಪ Jೇಶದ"; ಕಟ1ಡ Lr @ ೊಂNರು:ಾGaೆ. ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಾ;' ನಂ.4 ರ"; ಸOೇ ನಂ.160
ರ †ಡುವ[Jಾರರು 6 ೕ.ರಘj ಆ . v- `ೆ.ಎ#.aಾಜಣ" ಎಂಬುವವರು ಕಟ1ಡ Lr @ ೊಂNರುವ^ದು
ಕಂಡು ಬಂFರುತGJೆ.
ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2, 163/3, 161/7, 160 ಮತುG 166 ರ ªÀÄzsÀå ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ಾದು ೋಗುವ
aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆಯನುX ಸುpೕರು {ಾ"s ೆq "r‚ೆt ಸಂ.ೆƒಯವರು ಾಗೂ ಸOೇ ನಂ.164ರ
ಹಕುPJಾರರು ವಸd ಸಮುಚeಯ ಾ ೌಂNನ ಒಳ ೆ 2 ಂದ 3.00 rೕಟ ಅಗಲದ ಾಲುOೆಯನುX
ಪ ಸುGತ vಡ7ಾYJೆ.
ಹಳF ಬಣ" ದ"; :ೋ @ರುವ ಪ Jೇಶವ^ aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆ{ಾYದು8, ಸುTಾರು 1-05 ಗುಂ‚ೆ -
2@Gೕಣ 2ದು8, ಸದ ಪ Jೇಶದ"; ಆ .s.@Jಾರaಾದ ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2ರ, 163/3, 161/7 ರ ಮತುG
166 ರ †ಡುವ[Jಾರರು (ಆ .s.@Jಾರರು) ಒತುGವ TಾNರುವ^ದು ಅಳ:ೆ Oೇ_ೆಯ"; ಕಂಡು
ಬಂFರುತGJೆ. ಒ‚ಾ1aೆ ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2 ರ"; 0-35 ಗುಂ‚ೆ, ಸOೇ ನಂ.163 ರ"; 0-02 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಸOೇ
ನಂ.161/7 ರ"; 0-06 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಮತುG ಸOೇ ನಂ.160 ರ"; 0-02 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಒತುGವ ಕಂಡು ಬಂFರುತGJೆ.
ಎಂದು ಸOೇ ¸ÉÌÃQxೊಂF ೆ ವರFಯನುX LೕNರು:ಾGaೆ.
ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲು;ಕು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರ ಕ<ೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?.
ಎ-.@.ಆ .(ಉ)@ಆ /93/21-22 F:14-03-2025 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢ DzsÁjvÀ ªÉÄ®ÌAqÀ
ದೂ ನ"; d[@ರುವ ಒತುGವ Jಾರaಾದ 1). 6 ೕ. ರ2ಶಂಕ ಗುರೂZ, ಆf ಆg "2ಂh 2) 6 ೕ
ರಘj ಅವkಾL 3).6 ೕ. FSಗಜಯ lೌಧ . 4). ಉತGn ಚಂo ಭಂ ಾ 5). p|| ಸುpೕರು ೊ;ೕಬW
ಸ!ೕf ಸಲೂ?ಷ- ೆqOೇf "rst ರವರ 2ರುದ" ಾನೂನು ೕdಯ ಕ ಮ ಜರುYಸ ೇ ೆಂದು
ವರFಯನುX LೕNರು:ೆGೕxೆ.
ಸ†/-
ಲ'(ಣ ೌಡ ಎ#
!"ೕ# ಇ-- ೆಕ1
v.ಎಂ.s.ಎg. !"ೕ# ಾ ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು,"
This becomes a crime in Crime No.201 of 2025 for the offence
punishable under Section 192-A of the Act. The crime is registered
on 19-09-2025. No action is taken. For the first time a notice comes
to be issued by the Police against accused No.2 under Section 35(3)
of the BNSS. The notice reads as follows:
"ಕxಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾ{ಾ ಚರ ೆ ಪ ೆ
Z.v.ಎ ೇಂದ ಕ<ೇ , ಎ-.ಆ .ವೃತG, ೆಂಗಳ ರು-2, ದೂ.ಸಂ.080-22975589.
ನಂ:ಎNZw/vಎಂsಎg/‹.ಸಂ/201/2025
!"ೕ# ಇ-- ೆಕ1 ,
v.ಎಂ.s.ಎg !"ೕ# ಾ ೆ
Z.v.ಎ ೇಂದ ಕ<ೇ ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು, Fxಾಂಕ : 18.12.2025
!"ೕ# xೋsೕ#
(ಕಲಂ : 35(3) ...ಾರdೕಯ xಾಗ ೕಕ ಸುರ•ಾ ಸಂ†:ೆ-2023)
ಈ ಮೂಲಕ Lಮ ೆ d[ಯಪNಸುವ^Jೇxೆಂದaೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರZ7ೆ;, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ
:ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ಉತGರಹ[\ ೋಬ[, ಕಗ]"ೕಪ^ರ ಾ ಮದ ಸOೇ ನಂಬ ಗ_ಾದ 160, 164/1, 164/2,
150, 137, 135 ಮತುG 46 ಗಳ"; ಸ ಾ `ಾಗ, ೆaೆ, aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆ, Lೕರು ಹ ಯುವ ಹಳ\ ಾಗೂ
ಇತaೆ ಸ ಾ `ಾಗವನುX ಒತುGವ TಾN ೊಂಡು ವಸd ಸಮುಚeಯ ಾಗೂ ಕಟ1ಡಗಳನುX LTಾ ಣ
TಾNರುವ 1). 6 ೕ.ರ2ಶಂಕ ಗುರೂZ, ಆfಆg "2ಂh 2) 6 ೕ. ರಘj ಅವkಾL 3).6 ೕ. FSಗಜಯ
lೌಧ , 4).ಉತGnಚಂo ಭಂ ಾ 5). p॥ ಸುpೕರು ೊ;ೕಬW ಸ!ೕf ಸಲೂ?ಷ- ೆqOೇf
"rst ರವರುಗಳ 2ರುದ" ಾನೂನು ೕdಯ ಕ ಮವನುX ೈ ೊಳ\ ೇ ೆಂದು LೕNದ ದೂರು
v.ಎಂ.s.ಎgನ"; ನಂ.ಎNZw/vಎಂsಎg/wsಷ-/138/2022 ರಂ:ೆ Jಾಖ7ಾYದು8, ದೂ ನ
2lಾರ ಾ ಅವ ಯ"; ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 , ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು ಮತುG ಭೂJಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ
LJೇ ಶಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು ರವ ೆ ಪತ ರOಾxೆ Tಾಡ7ಾYದು8, Fxಾಂಕ;15-04-
2025 ರಂದು @/ೕt !ೕ#1 ಮು>ಾಂತರ ಬಂದ ಪತ ವನುX ಪ 6ೕ"ಸ7ಾY ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ದ9ಣ :ಾಲು;ಕು,
ು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರ ಕ<ೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?,
ಸಂ>ೆ? ಎ-.@
ಎ- @.ಆ
ಆ .(ಉ
ಉ)@
@.ಆ
ಆ /93/21-22 F:14-
03-2025 ರಂ:ೆ LೕNರುವ ವರF ಮತುG ಭೂ Jಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ
:ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ರವರು LೕNರುವ ಸOೇ ¸ÉÌÃQ ಸದ ಸS:ಾGದ ಕಗ]"ೕಪ^ರ ಾ ಮದ ಸOೇ ನಂ.46, 150
ಾಗೂ v.ಎಂ. ಾವW ಾ ಮದ ಸOೇ ಗಳ ಜrೕನುಗ[ ೆ ೊಂF ೊಡಂ:ೆ ಇರುವ ಸ ಾ
ಜrೕನುಗಳ ಒತುGವ ಬ ೆ] ಸOೇ ಾಯ ೈ ೊಂNದು8, Tಾನ? ಘನ ಭೂ ಕಬ[ ೆ L‡ೇದ 2•ೇಷ
xಾ?{ಾಲಯ ಪ ಕರಣ ಸಂ>ೆ?. ಎW.Z.@.ನಂ.23/2024 ರಂ:ೆ ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ರವರ ಪತ
ಸಂ>ೆ?.ಎ-.@.ಆ .ನಂ.23/2004 ರಂ:ೆ ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?.
ಎ-.@.ಆ .(ಉ)/@ಆ /213/23-24 ಾಗೂ ಭೂ Jಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ದ9ಣ :ಾಲೂ;ಕು ರವರ ಕlೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ? ಭೂ.ಾL/w ಆ /ಇ-505554/2024-25 ರ F:29-01-
2024 ರಂ:ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ1 d[@ ೕಸ.ನಂ.164/1, 164/2, 163/3, 161/7, 160, ಮತುG 166ನುX
ಅಳ:ೆ ೆಲಸ Lವ †@ ನ•ೆ ವರFಯನುX ತ{ಾ @Jೆ.
ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2 "; ಸುpೕರು {ಾ"s ೆq. "r‚ೆt ಸಂ.ೆƒಯವರು ಾ;' ನಂ.1 ಾ;'
ನಂ.2, ಾ;' ನಂ.3 ರ"; ಒಟು1 0-8 1/4 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಪ Jೇಶದ"; ವಸd ಸಮುಚ'ಯವನುX
Lವ †@ ೊಂNರು:ಾGaೆ. ಸOೇ ನಂ.163/3 ರ"; 6 ೕಮd ಾನುಮd v- ಆ .ಎ#. ರತXಂರವರು
0-02 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಪ Jೇಶದ"; ಕಟ1ಡ Lr @ ೊಂNರು:ಾGaೆ. ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಾ;' ನಂ.4 ರ"; ಸOೇ ನಂ.160
ರ †ಡುವ[Jಾರರು 6 ೕ.ರಘj ಆ . v- `ೆ.ಎ#.aಾಜಣ" ಎಂಬುವವರು ಕಟ1ಡ Lr @ ೊಂNರುವ^ದು
ಕಂಡು ಬಂFರುತGJೆ.
ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2, 163/3, 161/7, 160 ಮತುG 166 ರ ಮಧ? ...ಾಗದ"; ಾದು ೋಗುವ
aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆಯನುX ಸುpೕರು {ಾ"s ೆq "r‚ೆt ಸಂ.ೆƒಯವರು ಾಗೂ ಸOೇ ನಂ.164ರ
ಹಕುPJಾರರು ವಸd ಸಮುಚ'ಯ ಾ ೌಂNನ ಒಳ ೆ 2 ಂದ 3.00 rೕಟ ಅಗಲದ ಾಲುOೆಯನುX
ಪ ಸುGತ vಡ7ಾYJೆ.
ಹಳF ಬಣ"ದ"; :ೋ @ರುವ ಪ Jೇಶವ^ aಾಜ ಾಲುOೆ{ಾYದು8, ಸುTಾರು 1-05 ಗುಂ‚ೆ
2@Gೕಣ 2ದು8, ಸದ ಪ Jೇಶದ"; ಆ .s.@Jಾರaಾದ ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2ರ, 163/3, 161/7 ರ ಮತುG
166 ರ †ಡುವ[Jಾರರು (ಆ .s.@Jಾರರು) ಒತುGವ TಾNರುವ^ದು ಅಳ:ೆ Oೇ_ೆಯ";
ಕಂಡುಬಂFರುತGJೆ. ಒ‚ಾ1aೆ ಸOೇ ನಂ.164/2 ರ"; 0-35 ಗುಂ‚ೆ, ಸOೇ ನಂ.163 ರ"; 0-02 ಗುಂ‚ೆ
ಸOೇ ನಂ.161/7 ರ"; 0-06 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಮತುG ಸOೇ ನಂ.160 ರ"; 0-02 ಗುಂ‚ೆ ಒತುGವ ಕಂಡು
ಬಂFರುತGJೆ. ಎಂದು ಸOೇ ¸ÉÌÃQxೊಂF ೆ ವರFಯನುX LೕNರು:ಾGaೆ.
ತಹ6ೕ7ಾ8 ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ:ಾಲು;ಕು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರಕ<ೇ ಪತ ಸಂ>ೆ?,
ಎ-.@.ಆ .(ಉ)@.ಆ /93/21-22 F:14-03-2025 ರವರು LೕNರುವ ವರF ಆkಾ ತ ಮತುG
ಭೂJಾಖ7ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ LJೇ ಶಕರು, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ದ9ಣ:ಾಲೂ;ಕು ರವರು LೕNರುವ ಸOೆ .ೆPQ
ಅನSಯ pೕಲPಂಡ ದೂ ನ"; d[@ರುವ ಒತುGವ Jಾರaಾದ 1). 6 ೕ. ರ2ಶಂಕ ಗುರೂZ, ಆfಆg
"2ಂh 2) 6 ೕ. ರಘj ಅವkಾL 3).6 ೕ.FSಗಜಯ lೌಧ , 4).ಉತGnಚಂo ಭಂ ಾ 5).p॥
ಸುpೕರು ೊ;ೕಬW ಸ!ೕf ಸಲೂ?ಷ- ೆqOೇf "rstರವರ 2ರುದ" ಾನೂನು ೕdಯ
ಕ ಮಜರುYಸ ೇ ೆಂದು ೊfಟ ದೂ ನ pೕaೆ ೆ v.ಎಂ.s.ಎg ಾ ೆಯ ‹.ಸಂ.201/2025,
ಕಲಂ:192(A) KLR Act 1964 ೕ:ಾ? ಪ ಕರಣ Jಾಖಲು TಾN ತL>ೆ ೈ ೊಂNರುತGJೆ.
ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದ ತL>ಾ ಸಂಬಂಧ, Lೕವ^ pೕಲPಂಡ ಸSdG ೆ ಸಂಬಂ @ದಂ:ೆ ಸSdGನ
Jಾಖ7ಾdಗ_ೆ ಂF ೆ Fxಾಂಕ:29.12.2025 ರಂದು ೆ[ ೆ] 11-30 ಗಂ‚ೆ ೆ ಈ ೆಳ ೆ ಸ† TಾNರುವ
ತL>ಾ ಾ ಯ ಮುಂJೆ ಾಜaಾಗಲು ಸೂ˜@Jೆ.
ಸ†/-
(JೊಡŠಪ/ `ೆ)
!"ೕ# ಇxೆ-™ಕ1
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾ{ಾ ಚರ ೆ ಪ ೆ
!"ೕ# ಾ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ರವ ೆ,
ರಘj ಆ v- `ೆ.ಎ# aಾಜಣ"
Oೇದ 2šಾನ ಮ ಾ2Jಾ?wೕಠ,
ಪಂಚY ಆಶ ಮ ಟ #1,
ಉದಯಪ^ರ, ಉತGರಹ[\ ೋಬ[,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು."
Several survey numbers are indicated as was found in the
memorandum of public interest petition and before the Land
Grabbing Court. The name of the petitioner does find place in the
narration of the notice, but the notice by itself is not issued to the
petitioner. Notice being issued to accused No.2 drives the
petitioner/accused No.1 before this Court.
8. A perusal at the contents of the complaint would clearly
indicate that there is no allegation against the petitioner for land
grabbing or encroachment of Government land. Merely because he
was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the public interest petition,
proceedings are drawn against him by dragging him into the web of
proceedings. It is trite law that registration of a crime is a serious
matter against any citizen. Therefore, it cannot be registered
without there being any prima facie material. Prima facie material
cannot be gathered during investigation. It must exist in the
complaint. The narration in the complaint is based upon three
factors viz., (i) PIL, (ii) the proceedings before the Land Grabbing
Court and (iii) the investigation/report by the Tahsildar which is
produced before the Land Grabbing Court. BMTF then after
following the procedure stipulated or elucidated by Benches of this
Court with regard to issuance of notice to the accused and then
registering the crime under Section 192-A of the Act has
scrupulously followed the procedure. There is no procedural
aberration committed by the BMTF in the case at hand. There is no
allegation against the petitioner that can become the offence under
Section 192-A of the Act.
9. Section 192-A of the Act reads as follows:
"192-A. Offences and Penalties.--Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Act or the rules made
thereunder whoever commits any of the offence specified
in column (2) of the Table below, shall on conviction by a
Judicial Magistrate of first class for each of such offence
be punishable with the sentence indicated in column (3)
thereof,--
TABLE
Sl. No. Offence Punishment
(1) (2) (3)
(1) Unlawfully enters or occupies Imprisonment for one year
on any Government land with and fine of rupees five
the intention of holding that thousand.
Government land:
Provided that it shall not apply
to cases of Jamma, Bane lands
in Coorg District or encroached
government lands regularised
or pending for regularization
before the Committee
constituted under Sections 94-
A, 9-4B and 94-C of the Act.
(2) Cheats and thereby Imprisonment for three
dishonestly creates years and fine of rupees
documents for the purpose ten thousand.
of selling, mortgaging or
transferring by gift or
otherwise of any
Government land.
(3) Creates a forged document Imprisonment for three
regarding Government lands years and fine of rupees
with an intention to use it for five thousand
that purpose or to grab such
land.
(4) Being a Revenue Officer Imprisonment for three
entrusted with the years and fine of rupees ten
responsibility of reporting thousand.
unlawful occupation of
Government land or initiating
action to remove such
unauthorised occupiers fails to
report or take action to remove
such unlawful occupants:
Provided that it shall not apply
to cases of Jamma, Bane lands
in Coorg District or encroached
government lands regularised
or pending for regularization
before the Committee
constituted under Sections 94-
A, 94-B and 94-C of the Act:
[(5) Sells any agricultural land for The penalty of rupees one
non-agricultural purposes lakh.]
without getting such land
converted or without obtaining
prior approval of the competent
authority:
Provided that it shall not apply
to cases which are regularized
by the Government by
formulating a special scheme in
this behalf.
(6) Creates a forged document, Imprisonment for one year
regarding conversion of and fine of rupees five
agricultural land for non- thousand.
agricultural use or authorising
the holder of agricultural land
to use for non-agricultural
purpose.
(7) Being a public servant Imprisonment for three
entrusted with the years and fine of rupees ten
responsibility of maintaining thousand.
records or entrusted with the
responsibility of reporting
unlawful conversion to the
competent authority fails to
report to the competent
authority or to initiate action
against unlawful conversion of
revenue lands for non-
agricultural purposes:
Provided that it shall not apply
to cases which are regularized
by the government by
formulating a special scheme in
this behalf.
(8) Contravenes any lawful order With fine which may extend
passed under this Act. to five thousand rupees for
the first offence and five
times the fine for the
second and subsequent
offences."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 192-A mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in
any Act or the Rules, whoever commits any offence specified in
column No.2 of the table appended to Section 192-A would become
punishable. Srl.No.2 of the table observes that whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly creates documents for the purpose of selling,
mortgaging or transferring by gift or otherwise of any Government
land would become open for proceedings and consequent
punishment. If the complaint is noticed on the touchstone of
ingredients necessary to be present for an offence under Section
192-A what would unmistakably emerge is that, they are
completely lacking even to their semblance in the case at hand.
Therefore, while recording that no procedural aberration has
happened in the case at hand by the BMTF, interference is
warranted on the score that, even if the complaint is taken on its
face value it does not make out an offence against the petitioner, as
there is not even an iota of allegation against the petitioner in
encroachment of Government land. While it may be against others
or others would be required to defend the action, insofar as the
present petitioner is concerned, there is nothing worth the name, to
permit investigation even in the case at hand.
10. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I has strenuously
contended that a coordinate Bench of this Court has recognized the
manner or modus operandi of the foundation in Civil Revision
Petition No.539 of 2015 which comes to be disposed of on
17-08-2023 and would paraphrase those observations to the case
at hand, to contend that the foundation is guilty of land grabbing.
The said judgment would not become applicable to the facts
obtaining the case at hand. There, the challenge was to an auction
sale. All the findings rendered by the learned single Judge revolves
round the auction sale. Therefore, the auction sale dated
19-04-2003 which was the fulcrum of the lis was set aside and the
parties were directed to maintain status quo. The said judgment
was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court
confirmed the said judgment. The judgment of the learned single
Judge or the judgment of the Apex court would in no way become
applicable to the facts obtaining or the fulcrum of the subject lis.
This Court is presently examining registration of a crime against the
petitioner. If there is no allegation in the complaint that would
permit investigation, the investigation cannot be permitted.
11. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I has placed reliance
upon three judgments quoted supra. There can be no qualm about
the principles so laid down by the Apex Court in all the aforesaid
judgments. All the three judgments, on which the learned State
Public Prosecutor places reliance upon, would hold that at the stage
of registration of crime normally the Court should not interfere in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., or 528
of the BNSS. But, nevertheless, they would also observe that if it
would not amount to an allegation that would not become an
ingredient of any offence, such crimes must be obliterated by
following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In
NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED supra, the
Apex Court follows BHAJAN LAL and observes as follows:
".... .... ....
10.3. Then comes the celebrated decision of this Court
in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . In the said decision, this Court
considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under
Section 482CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and
held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into
the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the
proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to
complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the
following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed:
"102. (1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case also lays down 15 postulates
of interference and non-interference. Paragraph 13 reads as
follows:
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right
from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC
OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18] , the
following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained
in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable
offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The
rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing
under Section 482CrPC is not to be confused with the norm
which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty,
as explained previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of
activities. The inherent power of the court is, however,
recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the
above of the process by Section 482CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according
to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating
to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by
the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits
of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce
the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does
not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the application made
by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious.
It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan
Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power
under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the
allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the
allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds, in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere with investigation. At clause 13.3 the
Apex Court clearly observes that however, in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First
Information Report, the Court will not permit an investigation to go
on. The subject petition falls squarely within the parameters of
paragraph 13.3. As observed, the Apex Court follows the judgment
in the case of BHAJAN LAL and lays down parameters of
interference/non-interference. In the light of the fact that there is
no iota of allegation against the petitioner and him being dragged
into the web of proceedings only on the score that he is named as
respondent No.5 in a public interest petition, the proceedings if
permitted to continue, would become an abuse of the process of
law against the petitioner and result in miscarriage of justice.
12. In the light of the unequivocal facts and the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court, all quoted supra, I deem it appropriate
to obliterate the crime against the petitioner.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Complaint in Crime No.201 of 2025 dated 19-09-2025
registered by the 2nd respondent/BMTF Police stands
quashed qua the petitioner.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section
528 of the BNSS and it would not become applicable to
any other accused in the subject crime.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp/CT:MJ
