Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 728 (KAR)

Revansiddappa Satanur v. State of Karnataka

2014-08-12

N.ANANDA

body2014
ORDER : N. ANANDA, J. 1. This petition is filed to quash the final report filed for an offence punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for offences punishable under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2007(Read as 2011) and Section 192 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 2. Sri R.V. Nadagouda, learned Counsel for petitioner has filed several documents to establish that petitioner has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of disputed lands since times immemorial. The learned Counsel relying on these documents would submit that final report cannot be sustained. The allegations made in the complaint cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for petitioner would further submit that Government has not established the Special Courts to try offences under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2007, therefore, the final report has to be quashed. 3. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that disputed property belongs to the Government. The petitioners are squatting on the Government lands. Therefore, there are no reasons to quash the final report. 4. The law is fairly well-settled, while considering the petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Court will have to accept the averments of final report on their face value. The Court need not consider probable defence available to the accused. The Court need not ensure that case will end in conviction. 5. The learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2007, to contend that Government has not established the Special Courts. 6. The final report is filed for an offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2007 and Section 192 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 7. Even if the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2007, the Trial Court has jurisdiction to try offences punishable under Section 447 of IPC and under Section 192 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. There are no reasons to quash the final report. The petition is dismissed.