Court holds that allegations of selling property despite occupancy rights granted require detailed trial; imposes Rs.15,000 exemplary costs on petitioners' counsel for unsustainable submissions.
In a significant ruling delivered on October 9, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings against Arala Damodar Prabhu and another accused in a cheating case related to the sale of disputed property. The case arose from allegations that the petitioners sold land belonging to the complainant despite occupancy rights having been granted in favor of the complainant's father.
The petitioners had argued before the High Court that the property originally belonged to a temple, and they were unaware of the occupancy rights granted to the complainant's father. They contended that upon learning of this grant, they had promptly deposited the sale amount, asserting that criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. However, the Court held that such a defense requires a detailed trial and cannot be adjudicated under the inherent powers of the Court invoked through Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court noted that documents including the order of occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal, entries in the Record of Rights, and pending civil proceedings clearly indicated that the property was in the name of the complainant's father. The petitioners' sale of the property despite this raised serious questions that warranted trial. The Court emphasized the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which does not permit the Court to decide disputed facts or examine defenses at the quashing stage.
Additionally, during proceedings, the petitioners' counsel made an improper submission claiming that a deity or God cannot represent before a Court or Land Tribunal - a statement the Court found to be legally unsustainable and unbecoming of legal practice. Instead of initiating contempt proceedings, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000 on the petitioners, directing that the amount be payable within one week and recoverable as arrears of land revenue if defaulted.
This decision reaffirms the principle that allegations involving complex factual disputes, especially in property and cheating cases, must be tested through proper trial procedures. It also serves as a warning against frivolous or disrespectful submissions by legal practitioners.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted where allegations of cheating in sale of property require detailed trial and the defence of accused regarding lack of knowledge cannot be examined in inherent jurisdiction; exemplary costs may be imposed for improper conduct/submissions of counsel.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 420 IPC, Section 34 IPC
Arala Damodar Prabhu v. State by Bantwal Town Police, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997308
