Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurusiddappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201683 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O JAMBAYYA
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: FDA AT SEDAM TAHASIL OFFICE,
TQ: SEDAM,
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585222
R/O H.NO.104-105,
REGULAR CAMP, JOWKU
HAMPADEVANAHALLI
DISTRICT BELLARY-583129
2. SRI. ARJUN S/O LAXMAN
Digitally signed by AGE: 47 YEARS,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI OCC: SDA AT SEDAM TAHASIL OFFICE,
Location: HIGH R/O H.NO.11- NO.11/882
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SHIVARAJ TAILORS,
S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, BRAHMAPUR
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BABU H METAGUDDA AND
SRI. INDRADHANUSH CHAVAN ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SEDAM POLICE STATION,
REP. BY HCGP, SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
AT KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. SHRIYANK DHANASHREE
TAHASILDAR,
SEDAM TAHASIL OFFICE,
SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-585222
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.
99/2025, REGISTERED BY SEDAM POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 336(3), 336(4), 340(1),
340(2), 316(3), 316(4), 316(5), AND 318(4) OF BNS, 2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
AND JMFC SEDAM UPON SUCH TERMS THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO SECURE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR, complaint and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.99/2025, registered by Sedam Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 316(3), 316(4), 316(5) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the BNS, 2023'], presently pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Sedam.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that petitioner No.1 is working as FDA and petitioner No.2 is working as SDA in the Tashildar Office, Sedam and they were working as case worker in Bhoomi Sankalana and also entrusted with Central and State Elections, land matters, all types of meetings, DCB, Jamabandi as well as Audit section of respondent No.2. It -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR is stated in the complaint that, on 16.05.2025 in the evening hours, one Kaviraj, SDA and record keeper of the office of respondent No.2, verified the passbook bearing account No.62393154734 of State Bank of India and observed that on 22.04.2025 an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was withdrawn by self through cheque bearing No.599508 dated 21.04.2025 and another cheque bearing No.599515 dated 24.04.2025 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn by self on 02.05.2025 and in total Rs.3,00,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioners by misusing their official power without seeking permission and approval of the higher officer. The said amount was reserved for Aadhar linking and Bhoo Suraksha Yojana. The said aspect was brought to the knowledge of respondent No.2 and in-turn she verified the cheques and found that her signature was forged and Rs.2,50,000/- was withdrawn by petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn by petitioner No.2. As such, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR 24.05.2025, which registered in Crime No.99/2025 for the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the registration of FIR and complaint, the petitioners/accused are before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that the amount was withdrawn at the instance of respondent No.2-Tahsildar and thereafter on her instruction, the same was re-deposited by the petitioners into the account. He also contented that, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the signature found on the cheques is of respondent No.2-Tahsildar and there was no such forgery by the petitioners. He also contended that, before prosecuting against these petitioners, respondent No.2 has not obtained the sanction as per law, since the sanction was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner instead of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR District Commissioner. He further contended that respondent No.1-Police invoked Sections 336(3), 336(4), 316(5) cannot go hand in hand as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr in Criminal Appeal No.3114/2024. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that on perusal of the complaint averments, it is specifically stated that these petitioners being the FDA and SDA have withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively from the Government account which belongs to Bhoo Suraksha and Aadhar linking schemes by forging the signature of respondent No.2-Tahsildar on the cheques and the said aspect was very much admitted by them and they re-deposited the said amount in the said account. In such circumstances, there are prima facie materials forthcoming against the petitioners.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. He also contended that, as per the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Yadav vs. Niranjana Kumar Upadhyay and Others reported in 2024 INSC 979, any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Further, he contended that, now the investigation is under progress and the admitted signature of respondent No.2 and the questioned signature on the cheques were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination by the Investigating Officer and the Investigation Officer yet to receive the report.
7. He also contended that the findings of the District Commissioner at Annexure-M cannot be taken on its face value for the reason that the investigation is still under progress. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also opposed the petition on the ground that, at this premature -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR stage when the investigation is under progress, a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents available on record.
10. As could be gathered from records, on careful perusal of the complaint averments, respondent No.2/Tahsildar has specifically stated that the petitioners being FDA and SDA of the Tahsildar office, have illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in total i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- by petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- by petitioner No.2 by depositing two cheques. It is stated in the complaint that those cheques bear the forged signature of respondent No.2.
11. On instructions, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the disputed signatures on the cheques and admitted signatures of respondent No.2 were -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR sent for FSL by the Investigating Officer and the said report is not yet received from the FSL Office. Moreover, it is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount withdrawn by them was re- deposited in the account as per the advice of respondent No.2.
12. In such circumstances, the entire matter is at a premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded with, only some preliminary efforts were taken on the date of registration of the case. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and to be placed before the Court on the basis of which, the Court can come to a conclusion one way or another on the plea of false implication or malafide. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made with malicious intention, the investigation will reveal the same. At this stage, when there are only allegations and recriminations but no evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of false
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR implication or malafide on the materials presently available. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of false implication. Even otherwise, the complainant/respondent No.2-Tahsildar has no such personal animosity with these petitioners to lodge a false complaint, who are none other than the officials of the Tahsildar Office. The complaint averments disclose the serious allegations of forgery by misappropriating the fund belonging to Aadhar linking and Bhoo Suraksha schemes.
13. As far as the last limb of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 has not obtained valid sanction before prosecuting the petitioners is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Yadav (supra), summarized the position of law in respect of sanction as under:
(i) The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause. The provision is in the form of an assurance to the honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability and in furtherance of public interest, without being demoralized.
(ii) The expression "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" in Section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly to the extent that its operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the "course of duty". However, once it has been ascertained that the act or omission has indeed been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his duty, then a liberal and wide construction must be given to a particular act or omission so far as its "official" nature is concerned.
(iii) It is essential that the Court while considering the question of applicability of Section 197 CrPC truly applies its mind to the factual situation before it. This must be done in such a manner that both the aspects are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public servant is protected under Section 197 CrPC if the act complained of falls within his official duty and on the other, appropriate action be allowed to be taken if the act complained of is
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR not done or purported to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duty.
(iv) A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under Section 197 CrPC."
14. In the instant case, since the petitioners are involved in serious charges of misappropriation of public fund that too by forging the signatures of respondent No.2, the same cannot be termed as official duty.
15. The other ground urged by the petitioners that Sections 336(3), 336(4), 316(5) of BNS, cannot go hand in hand, also cannot be considered at this premature stage since the investigation is under the initial stage and the respondent No.1-Police has to file charge sheet. In that view of the matter, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487 CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT-BH