Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O Nijaguni Happalad vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
CRL.P No. 103103 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103103 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O. NIJAGUNI HAPPALAD,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (ACF), RESEARCH UNIT,
FOREST COMPOUND,
R/O. DHARWAD -580008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y.R. JOGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD TOWN POLICE STATION,
R/BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
RAKESH DHARWAD BENCH.
S
HARIHAR
Digitally signed by
2. BHARAMANNA PARANENNAVAR,
RAKESH S HARIHAR
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD R/O. TADAS, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI- 581212.
3. KADAPPA S/O RAMANNA MANDEKAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.GUDIHAL, TQ. KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD- 580114.
4. YALLAPPA AGASIMANI,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAMAPUR, TQ. DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD -580007.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
CRL.P No. 103103 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. HANAMANTH SAVASE,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. DEVARGUDIHAL, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD -580024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CRPC/528 OF
BNSS PRAYING TO I. QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.07.2025 AS
PER ANNEXURE-E AND QUASH THE FIR DATED 01.07.2025 AS PER
ANNEXURE-F IN DHARWAD TOWN P.S. CRIME NO 109/2025 AND
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 2
WHICH IS PENDING BEOFRE THE 2ND ADDL CJ AND CJM (JR.DN)
JMFC COURT DHARWAD FOR OFFENCE U/S 112 (2), 316(2), 318(4),
3(5) OF BNS 2023 II. THAT, ANY OTHER ORDERS MAY BE PASSED,
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused No.2 is before this Court under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS 2023) with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime
No.109/2025 and entire proceedings in the said case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
112(2), 316(2), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023) pending
before the Court of II Additional CJ and CJM (Jr.Dn.), JMFC
Court, Dharwad.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that a
false case has been registered against the petitioner. The
petitioner who is serving as Assistant Conservator of
Forests has been falsely implicated in the present case for
extraneous reasons. Marriage of the petitioner's son with
Aishwarya had taken place on 07.02.2025 and therefore it
is highly improbable that on 23.09.2024, the petitioner
was present when the first informant had given
Rs.5,10,000/- to his son Abhishek. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the
petition on the ground that investigation of the case is
under progress.
5. In the first information submitted by Kadappa
Mandekar, he has alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 have
floated a Company known as 'Aggressive Blood Agro Farm
Private Limited' in the year 2023 and with an assurance of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
HC-KAR
providing loan and subsidy for the purpose of purchasing
of sheep, pig etc., under the scheme known as 'National
Live Stock Machine', the accused persons had collected a
sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the first informant and had re-
paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the balance amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- was not paid. It is under these
circumstances, the first informant has approached the
police.
6. FIR has been registered in the present case for
cognizable offences. Therefore, the police have a right to
investigate into the allegations found in the first
information against the accused. At this stage, contentions
urged by the accused cannot be appreciated.
Undisputedly, investigation of the case is under progress.
It is trite that in normal circumstances, when FIR is
registered for cognizable offences, this Court in exercise of
its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot scuttle with
the investigation. The law in this regard has been laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
HC-KAR
Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Others reported in 2021 SCC Online 315 at paragraph
57 has observed as follows:
"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court,
right from the decision of the Privy Council in the
case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following
principles of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under
the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where
no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the 13 first information report the Court
will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare
cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its
application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not to be confused with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death penalty, as
explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled
at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
HC-KAR
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of
activities. The inherent power of the court is,
however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the above of the process by Section 482
Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police
are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where
noninterference would result in miscarriage of
justice, the Court and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the
Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that
the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of
law. During or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
HC-KAR
court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more
particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in
the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing
the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court
when it exercises the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited
Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in
(2021)5 SCC 795, at paragraph Nos.41 and 42 has
observed as follows:
"41. As cautioned by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the power of quashing should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining a complaint, the quashing of which is
sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10033
HC-KAR
42. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, this Court
again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not
to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a
complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity
than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta, this Court held
that if a perusal of the first information report leads
to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts
are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the
police, since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities and one ought not
to tread over the other sphere."
8. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases, if the material
available on record is appreciated, I am of the opinion that
the prayer made by the petitioner at this stage cannot be
granted. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is dismissed.
ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail the
final report, if the same is filed adverse to his
interest.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KGK
