Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 9 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: 1) Sri. K.L. Ramesh (aged ~75) represented by General Power of Attorney holder Sri. Rajagopal Desu; 2) M/s. S.B. Urbanscapes, a partnership firm, represented by its Managing Partner Sri. Rajagopal Desi.
  • Respondent: State represented by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force Police, headed by Police Inspector.
  • Criminal Petition No.184 of 2020 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of FIR No.51/2019 registered by the police for offences punishable under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Allegation: The landlords of survey numbers 44/1A, 44/1B and 44/2 in Yelachenahalli village encroached a pathway leading to Government Gunduthopu (survey No.45) and constructed a building, amounting to an encroachment of 3 guntas of karab land.
  • Documents annexed: Joint Development Agreement (Annexure‑D), RTC order (Annexure‑E), conversion order (Annexure‑F), sale deeds (Annexure‑G & H), BBMP licence (Annexure‑J‑J3), survey sketch from ADLR (Annexure‑K), notice issued to petitioner No.2 (Annexure‑C).
  • Petitioners’ arguments: (a) No preliminary enquiry or show‑cause notice was issued before FIR registration, violating natural justice; (b) Reliance on the judgment of SMT. Lalitha Sastry v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2008 KAR 4520) where the Court quashed proceedings for lack of preliminary enquiry; (c) Cited similar judgments dated 12‑08‑2013 and 11‑01‑2019 that also quashed proceedings.
  • State’s counter‑argument: The offence under Section 192‑A is a statutory provision that does not prescribe a preliminary enquiry; a 2008 government notification (RD 674 LGB 2008) cannot override the statute; the offence is cognizable under Section 192‑D, obligating the investigating officer to register the case.
  • Court’s legal analysis:
  • Extracted the substantive provision of Section 192‑A (offences and penalties) and noted it contains no requirement of a preliminary enquiry.
  • Highlighted that Section 192‑D expressly declares offences under the chapter cognizable.
  • Discussed that when a statute prescribes a procedure, subordinate legislation (notification) cannot amend it; cited multiple Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co‑op Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50; State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517; Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2013) 14 SCR 713).
  • Concluded that the police were within their statutory duty to register the FIR and investigate; no violation of natural justice was established because the statute itself does not mandate a pre‑investigation notice.
  • Referred to the Apex Court’s stance in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2018 SC 314) that High Courts should not stay FIRs when the investigating officer is lawfully exercising powers.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the criminal petition, refusing to quash FIR No.51/2019. The matter will proceed under the normal investigative process.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Land Revenue Law