Ramesh Moolya & Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

The prayer sought in this petition is to quash initiation of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.18814/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

The factual accusation made in the charge-sheet against the petitioners is that these petitioners on 22.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., went near the Educational Trust belonging to C.W.1 with a common object having an ill-will against C.W.1-Educational Trust Development and with that object, trespassed the said Educational Trust and abused C.W.1 alleging that where is he and abused in a filthy language and threatened to call him and if they fail to get him, they are going to take away the life of C.W.5, C.W.6, C.W.7, C.W.8, C.W.9, C.W.10, C.W.11, C.W.12, C.W.13, C.W.14 and C.W.15 and accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 held C.W.16, C.W.17 and C.W.18 and dragged them, even though they are woman and outraged their modesty in the presence of other witnesses. Hence, filed the charge sheet against the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in his argument would vehemently contend that very initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process. The counsel would vehemently contend that there was a trust deed dated 29.10.1990, wherein petitioners are also trustees, but with an oblique motive, another Trust deed was also made on 10.06.1999, wherein shown only two of them as trustees, but removed the word ‘charitable’ while making the fresh trust deed dated 10.06.1999 and so also, removed the earlier other members of the Trust. The counsel also would vehemently contend that a resolution was passed on 23.12.2016. But, it is alleged that earlier trustees have resigned, however, they have not resigned. The counsel would vehemently contend that lease agreement was executed when the earlier Trust was formed and the accused No.1-petitioner herein is owner of the said property. The counsel also would contend that when the lease agreement was executed, it is clear that property belongs to petitioner No.1. The counsel also would vehemently contend that, even though subsequently, Trust was created by making only two of them as trustees, but, letter given to the income tax stating that they are doing their activities in terms of earlier Trust Pan only and also even filed an affidavit to that effect.

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Annexure-B-complaint, wherein also reference is made that this is a second complaint and counsel would vehemently contend that MFAs are also filed in respect of suit in O.S.No.6549/2026 when the challenge was made questioning formation of new Trust in the year 1999 which was filed by the petitioners. So also, counsel brought to notice of this Court judgment passed in M.F.A.No.1522/2024 and counsel would contend that in other M.F.A.No.6631/2023, leave was granted and there were other two suits. The counsel would vehemently contend that there is a dispute with regard to title is concerned. When he was the owner and executed a lease agreement, there cannot be any trespass against the original trustees, who is the owner. The counsel also vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance. The I.O. added Section 354 of IPC subsequently while filing charge sheet and criminal colour is given to a civil dispute. The counsel would contend that when the case is filed against the complainant, the Co-ordinate Bench quashed the same, as it is a civil dispute. Hence, this Court also can quash the same terming the same as civil dispute. The counsel would contend that in respect of two survey numbers are concerned, there are suits and eviction petition and in respect of the same land, there are three suits in O.S.No.26500/2019, O.S.No.3883/2020 and O.S.No.25334/2020 and in total, 11 litigation between them. The counsel also filed synopsis furnishing all details. The counsel also relied upon the documents filed along with memo 02.03.2024 and so also other documents to evidence the fact that there was civil disputes between the parties.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument relied upon judgment of High Court of Karnataka delivered in M.F.A.NO.1522/2024 dated 20.07.2026, the judgment delivered in M.F.A. NO.6631/2023 dated 17.07.2026. So also, copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, copy of reply of Soundarya Educational Trust to the Commissioner of Income Tax that the respondent-complainant cannot blow hot and cold by furnishing the details to the Income Tax Department. So also, copy of the affidavit which was filed by the Managing/Authorized Trustee and copy of the Board Resolution of Soundarya Educational Trust dated 17.11.2025.

Learned Senior counsel in support of his argument relied upon order passed by this Court in RAMAN REDDY G.V. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6805/2022 dated 19.02.2026, wherein this Court considered that when the NCR is registered, the Police Officer cannot proceed to register the FIR on the basis of a similar second complaint and proceed with the investigation without assigning any reason for such action.

The counsel also relied upon order passed by this Court in SRI A. SRINIVASA AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHERS in WRIT PETITION NO.35377/2016 dated 12.12.2018, wherein at paragraph No.8, this Court taken note that in the first complaint dated 14.06.2014, there is a narration of incident that took place on that day and the first complaint was treated as NCR and there was no reason for the police to register the second complaint on similar allegations in respect of the same incident is concerned.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in ASIF KHAN PATHAN vs. STATE THROUGH PP AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE BOM 2217 and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.32, wherein it is held that the wordings of Section 155(2) as quoted earlier are mandatory, if it is a cognizable offence and also with regard to information given by the informant on which a non-cognizable case is registered is discussed in paragraph No.34.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in B.N.JOHN vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2025) 11 SCC 701, wherein also the Apex Court discussed with regard to as per FIR, there found no such allegation of assault or use of criminal force, FIR based on the complaint filed by the District Probation Officer, merely revealed allegation of creating disturbance.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in B.V. RAM KUMAR vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER reported in (2025) 3 SCC 475, wherein also discussion was made in paragraph No.22 with regard to necessary ingredients required to substantiate a charge under Section 504 IPC.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in NARESH ANEJA ALIAS NARESH KUMAR ANEJA vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2025) 2 SCC 604, particularly brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.22 to 24, wherein discussion is made something better than vague statements must be produced before the Court and mens rea to be established while invoking criminal jurisdiction.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in 2026 SCC ONLINE SC 915 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.36 with regard to exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C when the criminal offences are invoked and so also, paragraph Nos.39 and 40, the accusation made in the FIR and also filing of charge sheet.

The counsel also relied upon order passed by this Court in SRI SRI RAGHUBHUSHAN THEERTHA SWAMIJI AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER passed in WRIT PETITION NO.14154/2020 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.935/2021 dated 03.03.2021, wherein this Court in paragraph No.5 discussed with regard to there were exchange of abusive words between the parties and wrongfully restrained them. When there was a civil dispute between the parties are concerned and material also placed with regard to the civil dispute is concerned, this Court comes to the conclusion that offences invoked are under Sections 341, 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. When a civil suit is pending before the Court in respect of issue involved between the parties, the matter has to be adjudicated before the Trial Court and there cannot be any criminal prosecution.

The counsel also relied upon order passed by this Court in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5039/2023 & CONN. PETITIONS dated 02.07.2024, wherein this Court in paragraph No.6 taken note of accusation made in the said case and while exercising the powers, comes to the conclusion that General Power of Attorney was fraudulently got created and observed that it would be for the Appellate Court to decide the dispute between the parties relating to the property in question which is the basis for the criminal complaint and allowed the petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in his argument would vehemently contend that charge sheet is filed and Annexure-E is very specific and accusation is made with regard to particular date of incident and in Annexure-B-complaint also specific accusation is made that incident has taken place on 22.02.2019. The counsel would contend that prior to this incident, suit was also filed by the complainant seeking the relief of bare injunction. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that petitioners herein have sought for possession in their suit. Hence, question of trespassing does not arise and they have trespassed the premises belonging to C.W.1. The counsel also would contend that police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet on 14.07.2019. The counsel also contend that when such suits are filed by the complainant and other suits are also filed, but other suits which the petitioners are referring are subsequent to filing of this complaint and only two suits were pending prior to this incident.

The counsel would contend that judgment passed in M.F.A.No.6631/2023 is challenging the order passed in Misc.No.233/2021 and other judgment passed in M.F.A.No.1522/2024 is challenging the order passed in Misc.No.235/2021. The counsel would contend that order of the Commissioner of Income Tax is dated 30.06.2026 and reply of Soundarya Educational Trust to Commissioner of Income Tax is dated 28.06.2026 and these are the documents subsequent to filing of this complaint and these documents cannot be considered and the Court has to only look into the documents prior to filing of this complaint is concerned. The counsel would contend that when the charge sheet is filed after the investigation, this complainant also not suppressed the earlier complaint and issuance of NCR and in the second complaint itself, specifically stated the same and when there is no such suppression, question of quashing does not arise. The counsel also would contend that in respect of quashing of the proceedings against the complainant, the issues in the suit and in the complaint were one and the same. Hence, it was quashed and therefore, question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioners applying the similar reason does not arise and this complaint and charge sheet is in respect of criminal acts.

The counsel would submit that Principal, Teachers, Driver and Lab Assistants were also present when the incident took, who are the eye witnesses i.e., C.Ws.16 to 18 and the petitioners outraged the modesty of Principal and Teachers and manhandled them. Before filing the charge sheet, only two suits were pending and subsequent to filing of charge sheet, four suits are filed. When the suit is filed for the relief of possession and eviction, question of trespass does not arise, but trespassed, inspite of suit for possession and eviction are filed.

In reply to this argument of learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that Sy.No.23 is in respect of Trust property and eviction suit is filed subsequently and suit filed by the complainant for injunction is also withdrawn and the suit filed for possession in respect of Sy.No.25 is only pending.

Having heard learned Senior counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also the grounds urged in the petition, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:-

Having considered the voluminous documents produced along with the memo dated 02.03.2024, those documents are trust deeds which are 2 in number, original suit, amended trust deed, copies of RTI applications, copy of deposit of title deeds and discharge deed, copies of discharge deed and lease deed, copy of rent receipts, copy of confirmation deed, copies of paper publications issued, and General Power of Attorney, copy of affidavit, copy of sale agreement and copy of notice dated 07.02.2020, postal receipt and acknowledgment and copy of plaint and written statement in respect of O.S.Nos.26500/2019, 25334/2020 and 3883/2020.

Apart from that, considering the grounds urged, it is the main contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is a dispute between the parties in civil suit, as there were two trust deeds and no dispute with regard to the fact that there were two trust deeds. It is also not in dispute that issues involved between the parties are in respect of Trust is concerned and subsequent trust deed of the year 1999 and original trust deed of the year 1990. The clauses mentioned in the same are also brought to notice of this Court. However, the scope of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and the Court has to examine whether the offences invoked against the petitioners constitute the ingredients of such offence. The Annexure-B is the complaint dated 22.02.2019. In the complaint, there was a reference of NCR No.168/2019 and no dispute that NCR was given when the complaint was given at 11.00 a.m. In the complaint itself, it is stated that on the same day, in the morning at 11.00 a.m. details are given in the earlier complaint, but NCR was issued. But, main contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that, once the NCR is issued, there cannot be entertaining of second complaint. The Annexure-C is the FIR based on the second complaint and Crime No.75/2019 is registered invoking the offence under Sections 506, 341, 447, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation of trespass, wrongful restraint, causing life threat and abuse in filthy language was made in the complaint and further statement of the witnesses were also recorded and police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

This Court in short referred accusation made in the charge sheet. It is also to be noted that Section 354 of IPC was later added and to that effect also, statement of witnesses were also recorded. The accusation made in the charge sheet is causing life threat and abuse in filthy language, particularly life threat was caused to C.W.5 to C.W.15 and outraged the modesty of C.W.16 to C.W.18 i.e., Principal and Teachers and also witnesses C.W.1 to C.W.26 are cited in the charge sheet. But, while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot appreciate the disputed facts even if any contradictions as contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners.

It is also to be noted that learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon order passed by this Court in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6805/2022 dated 19.02.2026 and so also, the order passed in WRIT PETITION NO.35377/2016 dated 12.12.2018, wherein NCR was issued and this Court has to take note of when the cognizable offence was committed, question of issuing NCR does not arise. Having perused the charge sheet and invoking of offence under Sections 341 and 447 of IPC, it is very clear that both are cognizable offences. In view of judgment of the Apex Court in LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it is categorically held that I.O. has no option and it is mandatory on the part of I.O. to register the case when the cognizable offence takes place. In the case on hand, the I.O. later realized that offences invoked are cognizable offences and the second complaint filed is also in respect of the same incident. If cognizable offences takes place, the complaint can be entertained. Hence, first contention that second complaint cannot be entertained cannot be accepted and there is no bar to entertain the same, when cognizable offences are invoked and the same is not noticed on the very same day by the I.O., though there was no suppression by the complainant in the second complaint, wherein reference is made with regard to first complaint given.

The counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in B.N.John’s case, in order to invoke Section 353 of IPC, there must be criminal force or assault and the same is not applicable to facts of the case on hand. But, in the case on hand, Section 354 of IPC is invoked and statement of witnesses C.W.16 to C.W.18 was also recorded and whether such manhandling was made or not and outraged modesty of a woman is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be dealt with in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in B.V. Ram Kumar’s case and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.32 and whether the petitioners have abused or not is also an issue to be considered during trial, since in the complaint, specific allegations are made that abused in a filthy language and cited the other witnesses evidencing the incident.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Naresh Aneja’s case and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.22 to 24, wherein discussion was made regarding mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the Court. The preliminary investigation report is also the concluding portion of the charge sheet, no direct allegations nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant and whether such intention was there or not is also a matter of trial and permission is also sought for invoking Section 354 of IPC when the witnesses speak about ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel’s case, wherein also the Apex Court in paragraph No.36 discussed with regard to scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR. So also in paragraph No.39 and 40, an observation is made that FIR did not contain any allegation of extortion and discussion was made with regard to exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. while quashing the FIR. But, in the case on hand, already investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed and statement of witnesses is also recorded and the same will not come to the aid of the petitioners.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of this Court in Sri Sri Raghubhushan Theertha Swamiji’s case, wherein this Court taken note of civil dispute between the parties and both the parties have approached the Court for quashing and also having taken note of the offences invoked and both the parties have approached the Court, an observation is made that when civil suit is pending, the matter has to be adjudicated before the Trial Court in respect of civil rights of the parties is concerned, if there is no criminal acts.

The other contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there is title dispute and this Court cannot touch upon title dispute. The counsel also contend that owner of the premises is one of the petitioner and it will not amount to trespass. But, the fact is that suit is filed for the relief of possession and another suit is filed for eviction in respect of both the survey numbers. When such being the case, when the petitioners are not in possession and if there is an act of invading, when the possession is sought before the Court, it amounts to trespass. No doubt, petitioner No.1 is also one of the original trustee, but there is a clear dispute with regard to rights of the parties of the Trust. The allegations made in the complaint as well as charge sheet is a criminal act and offence under Section 341 of IPC is a cognizable offence which is invoked, and so also, with regard to trespassing and offence under Section 447 of IPC, the same is also a cognizable offence. Hence, it cannot be contented that criminal colour is given to a civil dispute as contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners.

No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that when the complainant has approached this Court, this Court has quashed the proceedings in coming to the conclusion that it was a civil dispute. But, in the case on hand, no doubt, there were suits between the parties, but when a criminal act has occurred and specific accusation is made and witnesses have also witnessed the incident and the ingredients of the offence which have been invoked are outraging the modesty of a woman, particularly Principal as well as Teachers, the same has to be dealt with before the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of learned Senior counsel for petitioners that this Court has to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’.

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:

The criminal petition is dismissed.