STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHADCHAN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURAGI-585103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) /U/SEC. 528
OF BNSS ACT (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE
SHEET AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
/ ACCUSED NO.4 IN CC NO.6072/2022 (CRIME NO.172/2017) OF
CHANCCHAN POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 116, 166, 167, R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
AND SECTION 2(1)(k) R/W 29(b), 3(1) R/W 25(1B) (a), 26(1),
29(b), 30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC INDI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) U/SEC 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE ACCUSED NO. 3 IN C.C
NO.6072/2022 (CRIME NO.172/2017) OF CHANDCHAN POLICE
STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 116,
166, 167 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 2(1)(K)
R/W 29(b),3(1)R/W 25(1B)(a), 26(1), 29(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT
1959.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 28.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Petitioners herein, who are accused in Crime
No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017
registered by Chadachan Police Station, Vijayapura for the
offences punishable under Sections 116, 166, 167 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 2(1)(k), 29(b), 3(1), 25(1B)(a),
26(1), 29(b) and 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short), are before this Court in these
six petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to
quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid three cases
registered against them.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if
the allegations found in the charge sheet against the petitioners
are presumed to be true, the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
Sections 166 and 167 of IPC do not prima facie get attracted.
On the other hand, offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC
ought to have been invoked. Since, the said offence is covered
under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., deliberately the said offence is
not invoked in the charge sheet filed in the present case. He
submits that petitioners are Police Officers and therefore,
sanction as provided under Section 197 of Cr.PC. ought to have
been obtained and in the absence of such sanction under
Section 197 of Cr.PC., petitioners cannot be prosecuted. In
support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BASIR-
UL-HUQ AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL -
(1953) 1 SCC 637.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petitions. She
submits that petitioners herein, who are Police Officers, are
charge sheeted for the heinous offence of murder in Crime
No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018 registered by Chadachan
Police Station, Vijayapur. The impugned criminal proceedings in
the present case were registered by Gopal Hallur, who was then
working as the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chadachan Police
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
Station at the instance of his higher officer Mallikarjun Asode,
who was then the Circle Inspector of Chadachan Police Station
and therefore, Section 182 of IPC does not get attracted and on
the other hand, only offences punishable under Sections 166
and 167 of IPC gets attracted. She submits that the alleged act
of the petitioners cannot be said to have been committed by
them during the course of discharge of their official duty and
therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required.
Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petitions.
5. Learned HCGP, who has seriously opposed the prayer
made in these petitions, has produced a copy of the charge
sheets filed in Crime No.171/2017 and in Crime No.92/2018 by
Chadachan Police Station. The petitioners herein are charge
sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in
Crime No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018 by Chadachan
Police Station, Vijayapur District and since the impugned
criminal proceedings has a nexus with the crime committed by
petitioners in Crime No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018, it is
relevant to narrate the background in which the present
criminal cases were registered. In the charge sheet filed in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
Crime No.171/2017, petitioners who were working as Sub-
Inspector of Police and Circle Inspector of Police at the relevant
point of time in Chadachan Police Station, have been arraigned
as accused No.2 and accused No.3 and in the charge sheet filed
in Crime No.92/2018, petitioners have been arraigned as
accused No.12 and accused No.13 respectively.
6. In the said charge sheets, it is alleged that petitioners,
who are arraigned as accused in the above said cases, were
closely associated to accused No.1/Mahadeva Sahukara
Bhairagonda in the said cases and said Mahadeva Sahukara
Bhairagonda had long standing enmity with Dharmaraj
Chadachana and Gangadhar Chadachana. As against aforesaid
Dharmaraj Chadachana, Gangadhar Chadachana and Mahadeva
Sahukara Bhairagonda multiple criminal cases for committing
heinous offences like murder etc. were pending consideration.
Accused No.1/Mahadeva Sahukara Bhairagonda had conspired
with other accused persons in Crime No.171/2017 to commit
the murder of aforesaid Dharmaraj Chadachana and his brother
Gangadhar Chadachana and the petitioners herein were also
party to the said conspiracy. In furtherance of the said
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
conspiracy, on 30.10.2017, a fake encounter was held and in
the said incident, accused/Gopal Hallur had shot dead
Dharmaraj Chadachana and thereafter, at the instance of
accused/Mallikarjun Asode on the basis of the first information
submitted by CW1, FIR was registered in Crime No.171/2017
wherein it was stated that Dharmaraj Chadachana was shot
dead when he attempted to attack Police Officers, who had
gone to arrest him. In the charge sheet, it is mentioned that
accused/Mallikarjun Asode threatened CW52 to CW57 who
were present at the spot and also had thereafter filed false
criminal cases against them. The impugned criminal
proceedings was therefore, registered against CW52 to CW57 in
Crime No.171/2017, by Gopal Hallur at the instance of
Mallikarjun Asode on the false allegation of committing dacoity.
After entire investigation in Crime No.171/2017 was done, it
was found that Dharmaraj Chadachana was murdered in a fake
encounter by the accused/Gopal Hallur in furtherance of the
conspiracy with the other accused.
7. It appears that based on the extra judicial confession
made by one of the accused, Investigating Officer came to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
know about the murder of Gangadhar Chadachana, brother of
aforesaid Dharmaraj Chadachana which was also committed on
30.10.2017 itself in a different place. It is in these
circumstances, FIR in Crime No.92/2018 was registered and
charge sheet filed in the said case would go to show that
Gangadhar Chadachana was summoned to the place where he
was murdered stating that aforesaid Mallikarjun Asode had
asked him to come there. When Gangadhar Chadachana
reached the said spot, accused named in Crime No.92/2018
committed his murder and cut his body into pieces and threw
the same into a channel. Even in the charge sheet filed in
Crime No.92/2018, there is a serious allegation as against the
petitioners.
8. The impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR
registered in Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and
Crime No. 181/2017 registered by Chadachan Police Station,
Vijayapura, was registered by accused/Gopal Hallur in his
capacity as Police Sub-Inspector of Chadachan Police Station
against CW52 to CW57 in Crime No.171/2017. The allegation in
the charge sheet filed in Crime No.172/2017, Crime
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017 registered by
Chadachan Police Station against the petitioners herein is that
false cases was initially registered against CW 52 to CW57 in
the aforesaid three criminal cases, on the basis of the first
information given by persons who were setup by the petitioners
herein for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and
Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. The allegation in the FIR was
that deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan and his accomplices had
barged into the house of first informant in the aforesaid three
cases and had forcibly taken the firearms which were the
subject matter of these three crimes. The said firearms were
subsequently planted at the spot of crime in Crime
No.171/2017 by Gopal Hallur and an attempt was made to
create false evidence against deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan
and also to falsely implicate his accomplices, in the aforesaid
three cases namely, Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017
and Crime No. 181/2017. It is only after the role played by the
petitioners in the murder of Dharmaraj Chadachana and his
brother Gangadhar Chadachana was revealed during the course
of investigation in Crime No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018,
it appears that their role in registering false criminal cases in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and Crime No.
181/2017 also got revealed. It is under these circumstances,
they have been charge sheeted in Crime No.172/2017, Crime
No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017.
9. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that
the offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC gets attracted
in these cases and not the offences punishable under Sections
166 and 167 of IPC, considering the nature of allegations found
as against the petitioners in the charge sheet, I am of the
opinion that the offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC
does not get attracted against them and only offences
punishable under Sections 166 and 167 of IPC gets attracted
against them. Section 182 of IPC reads as under:
"182. False information, with intent to cause
public servant to use his lawful power to the injury
of another person.- Whoever gives to any public
servant any information which he knows or believes to
be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-
(a) to do or omit anything which such public
servant ought not to do or omit if the true
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
state of facts respecting which such
information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public
servant to the injury or annoyance of any
person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both."
10. For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable
under Section 182 IPC based on information given to a public
servant which the informant knows or believes to be false,
causes such public servant do such acts as stated in clause (a)
& (b) of Section 182 IPC, is liable to be punished. Therefore,
the allegations found as against the petitioners in the charge
sheet do not prima facie attract the offence punishable under
Section 182 IPC.
11. The allegation against the petitioners herein is that Gopal
Hallur, who was working as a Police Sub-Inspector at
Chadachan Police Station, at the instance of Mallikarjun Asode,
who was working as Circle Inspector of Chadachan Police
Station, Vijayapur, had registered these three false cases in
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and Crime No.
181/2017 as against CW52 to CW57 who were present at the
spot of crime, when Dharmaraj Chadachan was murdered in a
fake encounter by Gopal Hallur. Therefore, the ingredients for
the offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC is not found in
the allegations made against the petitioners herein in the
charge sheet, whereas allegations as against them would only
attract the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 167 of
IPC. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Basir-Ul-Huq (supra) cannot be made applicable to
the facts of the present cases.
12. The act committed by the petitioners in the present case
cannot be said to have been committed during the course of
discharge of their official duties. Petitioners, who are facing
charges for committing the murder of Dharmaraj Chadachana
and Gangadhar Chadachana in Crime No.171/2017 and
92/2018 have managed to register false criminal cases as
against the witnesses in those cases, who were present at the
spot of crime in Crime No.171/2017, when Gopal Hallur
committed the murder of Dharmaraj Chadachan in their
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
presence. The allegation against Mallikarjun Asode in Crime
No.171/2017 is that he was a party to the conspiracy to
commit the murder and had threatened CW52 to CW57 of filing
false criminal cases against them in the event they revealed the
fact of fake encounter and it appears that in furtherance of
such threat, the aforesaid three criminal cases were got
registered by him through his Junior Officer - Gopal Hallur.
Since the acts committed by petitioners is not committed
during the course of discharge of their duty, sanction under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary to prosecute them.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJIV KOURAV
VS. BAISAHAB AND OTHER - (2020) 3 SCC 317, has observed
that it is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the
appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal
proceedings. If a prima facie case is made out disclosing the
ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the
Court cannot quash a criminal proceedings.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
14. In the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS.
ARYAN SINGH AND OTHERS - 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 379, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.10 has observed as
follows:
"10. From the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High
Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the
High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High
Court was considering the applications against the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on
conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at
the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini
trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment
and order has observed that the charges against the
accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to
prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved
during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High
Court has materially erred in going in detail in the
allegations and the material collected during the course of
the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At
the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further against
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:960
AND 3 OTHERS
the accused for which the accused is required to be tried
or not".
15. Petitioners, who are responsible Police Officers have not
only indulged in committing heinous offence of murder in Crime
No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018 but have also indulged in
committing the alleged offences in the impugned criminal
proceedings and therefore, I do not find any good ground to
entertain these petitions. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
