Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 464 (KAR)

Amarappa S/o Basannagouda v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-18

V.SRISHANANDA

body2025
ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be please to quash the charge sheet and order of taking cognizance dated: 15-07-2021 in C.C.No.1178/2021 CRIME No.49/2020 Registered by Manvi P.S., pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Manvi, for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 & 409 of IPC, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged by Buddmma S/o. Mallesh Madiga with Manvi Police, which was registered in Crime No.49/2020 on 09.03.2020 for the offences punishable under Section s 420 and 409 of IPC. 3.2 Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that complainant and nine members belonging to the complainant caste applied for grant of lands with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Abhivriddhi Nigama (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Nigama’ for the sake of convenience). The said applications were lodged with the Nigama in the year 2017-2018. After verification of the applications, the officials of said Nigama identifies lands in Mallinamadagu Village, which are situated 02 kilo meters away from Sangapura Village, bearing Survey No. 28/1 measuring 7 acres 13 guntas belonging to Amarappa S/o Basannagouda and 7 acres 14 guntas belonging to padamma w/o. Doddanagouda. 3.3 After identification of the land, the same was also shown to the complainant and nine others as to the suitability and thereafter allotted the same on 27.11.2018 and the registered document was also executed in that regard. 3.4 After registration of the land, when the complainant and others went near the land to take possession of the land, Amarappa and padamma being the owners of the land contended that the land shown to them is not the land that has been allotted to them and complainant and others were restrained from taking possession of the said land. 3.5 Left with no alternative, complainant and others again went to the Nigama and enquired. 3.5 Left with no alternative, complainant and others again went to the Nigama and enquired. They came to know that the accused persons with the malafide intentions, have shown the land which is not cultivable and directed them to take action in accordance with law. 3.6 Therefore, complaint came to be lodged. After receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer conducted a detailed investigation inter alia collected the necessary documents and filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners. 3.7 Learned trial Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner and is proceeding with the case. 3.8 Taking of cognizance and proceeding with the criminal case is called in question in this petition on the following grounds: “5. That, the filing of charge sheet and initiation of Criminal Proceedings by the Respondent Police against the petitioners is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the entire proceedings before the learned Magistrate are liable to be quashed. ?. That, looking into the charge sheet material the allegation against the accused No.1 & 2/petitioner No.1 & 2, that with an intention to make unlawful gain, the Sy. No. 126/A & 126/Aa, which is not fit for agriculture, was sold to the beneficiaries instead of land bearing Sy.No.28/1. The charge sheet material contained the applications filed by the beneficiaries and particularly the complainant and beneficiaries in their applications specifically shown in column reserved for proposed land and Survey No. as 126/Aa & 126/A. Based on the applications filed by the complainant and other beneficiaries, on 15-12-2017 the sanction order was passed by the Manager Dr.B.R. Ambedkar development corporation. That apart the bond executed to the corporation by the respondent No.2 and other beneficiaries to obtain the loan also mentioned Sy.No.126. Further the registered sale deeds are executed in respect of extent of land in Sy.No.126/*/2 and 126/*/3 by the petitioner No.1 & 2 respectively. The aforesaid material prima-facie discloses that, the complainant and other beneficiaries were aware about the purchase of the land in Sy.No.126/2 and their conduct shows, they knowingly filed the applications and got executed registered sale deeds. Such being the facts, the present initiation of criminal proceedings are clear abuse of process of law and same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. Such being the facts, the present initiation of criminal proceedings are clear abuse of process of law and same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. That, the complainant having filed application seeking her selection under the scheme (Bhu Odetana) specifically mentioned the Sy.No.126 of Mallinamadagu village and further executed a bond to the corporation for obtaining the loan. Therefore, the charge sheet material, even if taken at its face value does not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision 420 of IPC. That, there is no allegations in the charge sheet that the petitioners have dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed. Therefore, in the absence of allegations that, the petitioners deceived the respondent No.2 with dishonest intention to deliver the property. In the case of A. Mohan Vs The State represented by SHO, 2024 Live Law SC 197 held that, "In other words, for attracting the provisions of 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: 1) The dispassion of any person: II) Fraudulentiy or dishonestly inducing the person to deliver any property to any person and III) Dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement". Therefore, in the absence of aforesaid material in the charge sheet the continuation of criminal proceedings are abuse of process of law and same is liable to be quashed. 8. That, looking into the statements and other beneficiaries as witnesses, discloses that one Basawaraj Malipatil had informed them regarding the alleged fraud committed by the petitioners. The charge sheet papers further discloses that the Basawaraj Malipatil, District Vice President Karnataka Raith Sangh (Hasiru Sena) has written a letter to the Manager regarding alleged fraud on 04-09-2018. The complainant got registered sale deed on 27- 11-2018. Therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings is after thought and at the instance of said Basawaraj, who is not in good terms with the family of the petitioners. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are malafide and same are initiated to achieve ulterior object to settle the personal score. 9. That, the trial court has failed to consider the charge sheet material before taking cognizance. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are malafide and same are initiated to achieve ulterior object to settle the personal score. 9. That, the trial court has failed to consider the charge sheet material before taking cognizance. The charge sheet material discloses that the agricultural land Sy.No.126/A and 126/Aa was certified by the Director of Agricultural and University of Agricultural Sciences Raichur to the effect that the land is fit for agricultural and horticulture purpose. Therefore, the initiations of criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 10. That, the petitioner No.3 to 5 are no way related to the alleged incident and no overtacts are made against the petitioner No.3 to 5 to attract the ingredients of Sec.420 of IPC. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.3 to 5 is sheer harassment and violtive of Article-21 of Constitution of India. 11. The facts as disclosed in the complaint and the FIR do not amount to commission of any offence by the petitioner. So, has held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Haryana Vs Bhajanlal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) "Where the allegations made in the First information report or in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prim face case constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused". Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are abuse of ocess of investigative authority. Therefore the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 12. That, in order to attract Section 420 & 409 there should be dishonestly misappropriation or converting to his own use or dispossess in violation of any direction of law. In the present case the allegations are not at all satisfying ingredients. Under the aforesaid circumstances the complaint allegation does not constitute any offence. 13. That, petitioners submit that, the very facts which has been given the outlook of a criminal case, is not maintainable as criminal case, same would cause embarrassment and harassment to the petitioner, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner, in the background allegations in the complaint. Hence the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 14. The petitioners submit that in the present set of facts/allegations, the offences, for the offence of cheating the required averment of inducement and intention of cheating has not forthcoming in the complaint. Hence the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 14. The petitioners submit that in the present set of facts/allegations, the offences, for the offence of cheating the required averment of inducement and intention of cheating has not forthcoming in the complaint. As such, the initiation of Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 15. The continuation of the proceedings before the court below would result in continuation of the abuse of the process of the court, in addition to the already committed abuse of the investigation mechanism and the process of the court, and same deserve to be set aside. 16. Viewed from any angle, it is crystal clear that the initiation of the proceedings against the Petitioner is highly erroneous and illegal and opposed to the principles of law and hence the same warrants the active interference of this Hon'ble Court to promote justice and prevent injustice.” 4. Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per the application given by Buddamma and others itself the land in Mallinamadagu Village bearing Sy.No.28/1 was not sought to be allotted and what was the land that has been sought is actually the land that has been granted to them. Therefore, there is no iota of prima facie material where the alleged offences Sections 420 and 409 have taken place. Hence, mechanical order of taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition. 5. He would further contend the materials collected by the Investigating Officer in the form of charge-sheet is placed before this Court, which would prima facie establish that there is no offence whatsoever committed by the accused persons. Therefore, continuation of the criminal case is nothing but abuse of process of law and thus, sought for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti appearing for the respondents support the filing of the charge-sheet and. 7. Therefore, continuation of the criminal case is nothing but abuse of process of law and thus, sought for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti appearing for the respondents support the filing of the charge-sheet and. 7. Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti would further contend that at the time of inspection of the land as to the suitability, the land that was shown is 28/1 but later on there is a mischief that has been committed by the Officer of the Nigama and he has colluded with the present petitioners in getting the some other land registered in the names of the petitioners which is nothing but cheating the rustic villagers like complainant and others, which requires a detail adjudication in view of the documents collected by the investigation agency and thus, sought for dismissal of this petition. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, there is some misunderstanding with regard to the land that has been identified for allotment and the actual land that has been allotted to the complainant and others. 9. Sri Mahantesh Patil submits that it is the mischief committed by the Manager of Nigama and disciplinary enquiry is already initiated against him. 10. The incident is of the year 2018 and an action that has been contemplated against the Manager is in the year 2021. Therefore, admittedly it is an afterthought by the Nigama and whatever the mistake that has occurred must be sorted out by the Officials of the Nigama in consultation with the accused. 11. If the land that has been shown to the petitioners and others and the land that has been granted are all together different lands, then it is prima facie a case of cheating. 12. Further, the land that has now been allotted consists of rocks and boulders and is incapable of cultivation that too by the rustic villagers, namely, Buddamma and others. Therefore, the material on record requires adjudication. 13. 12. Further, the land that has now been allotted consists of rocks and boulders and is incapable of cultivation that too by the rustic villagers, namely, Buddamma and others. Therefore, the material on record requires adjudication. 13. Having regard to the scope of the 482 proceedings, where mini trail cannot be held to find out the veracity of the allegations and the counter allegations and explanations offered by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer sought for in this petition cannot be granted. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the pending criminal case. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The petition is dismissed. ii. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court during the course of this order is only for the purpose of disposal of the above case and shall not influence the rights of the parties in the pending trial in any manner.