Land Grab Disguised As Civil Dispute: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Hotelier Duo Accused Of Conspiring With Public Officials To Usurp Prime Mangaluru Land
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has dismissed criminal petitions filed under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. and 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No.62/2024. The FIR pertains to offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them based on a complaint filed by a power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of a deceased landowner.
The court rejected the argument that the dispute was purely civil in nature and held that the allegations disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences. It recorded that "a given fact may stem two proceedings, both crime and a remedy that is civil in nature, which would by no means, mean the criminal proceedings must be quashed." The court further directed that investigation must continue in light of the alleged criminal conspiracy involving forgery, impersonation, and manipulation of official records to usurp land.
The petitions were filed by accused Nos.1 and 2—Jagadish Devadas Anchan and Nityanand Kundar—in Crime No.62/2024, registered with the Mulky Police Station. The case originated from a complaint filed by Harish Shetty B., who acted as the power of attorney holder for five legal heirs of Smt. Bhavani Adappa, the original owner of one acre of land in Sy.No.186/2 situated at Surathkal Village.
According to the complaint, Smt. Bhavani Adappa had purchased the land on 26 February 1964 through a registered sale deed. She passed away on 08 November 1990, leaving behind her son, daughter, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren as her sole surviving heirs. The land, now of considerable market value, was allegedly targeted by land grabbers.
The complainant alleged that the petitioners conspired to usurp the said land by creating fraudulent documents. It was discovered that the RTC (Record of Rights) of the land was altered to reflect the name of a different individual—one Bhavani Anchan—in place of the deceased owner. The altered records indicated that Bhavani Anchan was the wife of Devadas Anchan, whereas the actual husband of Bhavani Adappa was Devadas Adappa.
The fraudulent documentation facilitated the execution of two sale deeds by Bhavani Anchan in favor of third parties, Sampath Shetty and Niranjan, in November 2017. These transactions were followed by a mortgage of the property with YES Bank.
The legal heirs filed suits for injunction in O.S.Nos.41 and 42 of 2024 in the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM Court, Mangalore, and obtained a temporary injunction against alienation or encumbrance of the property.
Despite the injunction, Jagadish Devadas Anchan executed a sale deed on 08 April 2024 in favor of Nityanand Kundar. It was alleged that Jagadish claimed to be the son of Bhavani Anchan and Devadas Chandrashekar Anchan and relied on forged Aadhaar and death certificates issued in 2022 to obtain a surviving family member certificate. This document facilitated the mutation of RTC in his name.
The complainant asserted that the sale deed was executed with the knowledge and assistance of public servants—specifically the Sub-Registrar and a Second Division Assistant—who were already aware of the court’s injunction. It was contended that these officials colluded with the accused in executing the sale despite encumbrance certificates indicating prior transactions and mortgage of the property.
Earlier complaints had been filed before the CEN Police Station, Mangalore, under similar IPC sections, and civil suits were pending adjudication. The present FIR was registered with Mulky Police Station under Crime No.62/2024.
The court noted that the factual narrative in the complaint was not in dispute and observed that it disclosed detailed and specific allegations. It recorded that "the narration in the complaint is in great detail. The genesis of the issue is traced..."
The judgment stated: "The connivance of public servants in facilitating the crime, if proven, renders the matter one not of private grievance, but of public concern. The civil suit, pending though it may be, cannot eclipse the penal consequences, of what appears to be a serious offence, as the narrative in the case at hand unfolds not merely a tale of civil discord, but a systematic and deliberate fraud having all hues of a crime."
Rejecting the petitioners’ argument that the matter was civil in nature, the court observed: "The submission that these are civil proceedings in disguise, hence undeserving of criminal investigation is rejected and the law is too well settled, that the same set of facts, may give rise to both civil liability and criminal culpability."
The court relied on precedents including Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021) 16 SCC 142, Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, and Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428. Quoting these judgments, the court stated that civil proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution where prima facie offences are disclosed.
In quoting Priti Saraf, the court recorded: "Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court..."
Further, from Punit Beriwala, the court noted: "It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute..."
The court added that the allegations involving change of name, generation of fake Aadhaar and death certificates, procurement of false legal heirship certificate, mutation of RTC, and execution of sale deed by a hotel kitchen steward in favor of another hotelier reflected an orchestrated attempt at unlawful gain. It noted: "This Court is aghast at the audacity of the attempt... The machinery of law must not be paralyzed in the face of carefully orchestrated deception."
The court concluded that the petitions lacked merit and must be dismissed. It directed as follows: "For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand dismissed. Interim order, if any operating, shall stand dissolved."
It clarified the limited scope of its observations by stating: "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 petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings that are pending against these accused or other accused on the same subject matter."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Smt. Ananya Praneeth, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor; Sri K.S. Ponnappa, Advocate
Case Title: Jagadish Devadas Anchan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition Nos.4470/2025 and 8628/2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
