Karnataka High Court

Gopal Hallur vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 10 February, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:956
                                                       CRL.P No. 201562 of 2024
                                                   C/W CRL.P No. 201565 of 2024



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201562 OF 2024
                                                C/W
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201565 OF 2024


                   IN CRL.P.No.201562/2024:

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI GOPAL HALLUR S/O VITTAL,
                   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                   R/O. HARUGERI, RAIBAG TALUK,
                   BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591220
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI SRINATH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by                 AND:
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH           1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH          BY CHADCHAN POLICE STATION,
COURT OF                REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA               HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                        HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                        KALABURAGI - 585103

                   2.   SRI J. H. INAMDAR
                        CIRCLE INPECTOR,
                        CHADCHAN PS,
                        VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN CC NO.80/2021 (CRIME NO. 119/2018), OF CHANDCHAN POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.25(1),(a), 25 (1-B)(a), 25 (1-B) (C), 29(a), 29(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC INDI.

IN CRL.P.NO.201565/ 2024:

BETWEEN:

GOPAL HALLUR S/O VITTAL HALLUR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. HARUGERI, RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591220.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINATH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHADCHAN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI - 585103

2. SRI J.H. INAMDAR CIRCLE INSPECTOR, CHADCHAN PS, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT -586205.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2/ GOPAL HALLUR IN CC NO. 81/2021 (CRIME NO.118/2018) OF CHANDCHAN POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 25(1)(a), 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-B)(c), 29(a), 29(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT 1959, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, INDI.

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. In these two petitions, petitioner is common and the

subject matter of the petitions are interconnected and

therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this

common order.

2. Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused in CC

No.80/2021 and CC No.81/2021 pending before the Court of

Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi, arising out of Crime No.119/2018

and Crime No.118/2018 registered by Chadachan Police

Station, Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections

25(1)(a), 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-B)(C), 29(a) and 29(b) of the

Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short). Being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

him in the aforesaid cases, petitioner is before this Court in

these two petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the

grounds urged in the petitions submits that petitioner is

arraigned as an accused in the present cases solely based on

the confession statement of co-accused and except the same,

there is no other material against him. Petitioner is a Police

Officer and for extraneous reasons, he has been falsely

implicated in the present cases. Accordingly, he prays to allow

the petitions.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petitions. She

submits that petitioner is the prime accused in Crime

No.171/2017 and in Crime No.92/2018 registered by

Chadachan Police Station, Vijayapur for heinous offences. There

is sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner for the charge

sheeted offences and the car, which was used in committing

the crime in the present cases which belongs to the petitioner

has been seized. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the

petitions.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

5. Learned HCGP, who has opposed the prayer made in the

petitions has furnished the copy of the charge sheets filed in

Crime No.171/2017, which was registered by Chadachan Police

Station, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections

120B, 143, 147, 166, 177, 182, 191, 193, 192, 195, 195A,

199, 201, 202, 211, 220, 302, 452 and 506 read with Sections

34 and 149 of IPC and 25(1-B) and 30 of the Act and Crime

No.92/2018, which was registered by Chadachan Police Station,

Vijayapur for the offences punishable under Sections 120B,

143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 202 read with Sections 34 and

149 of IPC.

6. In the charge sheet filed in Crime No.171/2017,

petitioner who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at the

relevant point of time in Chadachan Police Station, has been

arraigned as accused No.2 and the Circle Inspector of

Chadachan Police Station, Mallikarjun Asode is arraigned as

accused No.3. In the charge sheet filed in Crime No.92/2018,

petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.12 and the Circle

Inspector of Chadachan Police Station, Mallikarjun Asode is

arraigned as accused No.13.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

7. It is stated that petitioner and the aforesaid Mallikarjun

Asode who are arraigned as accused in the above said cases,

were closely associated to Mahadeva Sahukara

Bhairagonda/accused No.1 in the said cases and the 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. The petitioner herein and his Senior

Officer/Mallikarjun Asode were also party to the said

conspiracy. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, on

30.10.2017, a fake encounter was held and in the said incident,

petitioner herein had shot dead Dharmaraj Chadachana and

thereafter, at the instance of 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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

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 Mallikarjun Asode threatened CW52 to CW57,

who were present at the spot of crime and also had thereafter

initiated false criminal cases against them. Petitioner and said

Mallikarjun Asode are now arraigned as accused in the said

three cases also. After entire investigation in Crime

No.171/2017 was done, it was found that Dharmaraj

Chadachana was murdered in a fake encounter by the

petitioner in furtherance of the conspiracy with the other

accused.

8. It appears that based on the extra judicial confession

made by one of the accused, the Investigating Officer came to

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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

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

petitioner herein and also against the aforesaid Police Officer

Mallikarjun Asode.

9. The allegation against the petitioner herein in these two

cases is that the country made pistol and other articles which

were seized by the police on credible information were found to

be secured from Madhya Pradesh by the petitioner from one

Sri. Bachan Singh, who is also arraigned as accused in the

present case with the help of other accused whom petitioner

sent to Madhya Pradesh in his private vehicle. The said vehicle

has been seized in the present case and the country made

pistol and other articles which allegedly were secured by the

petitioner from Madhya Pradesh and handed over to the

accused from whom it was seized in the present case are also

seized. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is

absolutely no material against the petitioner to prosecute him

for the charge sheeted offences.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

10. Even in the charge sheet filed in Crime No.171/2017

there is an allegation that the country made pistols which were

found at the spot of crime in Crime No.171/2017 were secured

by the petitioner from Madhyapradesh with the help of his aids

and were planted at the spot of crime to show as if the said

country made pistols were used by Dharmaraj Chadachana and

his followers.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Curt 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.

12. 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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

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 the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

13. The allegations found in the impugned criminal

proceedings against the petitioner is interlinked with the

allegations found in the aforesaid two other criminal cases in

which petitioner is facing charges for committing the murder of

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:956

Dharmaraj Chadachana and Gangadhar Chadachana and

therefore, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no material

to proceed against the petitioner for the charge sheeted

offences. Petitioner, who is a responsible Police Officer has not

only indulged in committing heinous offence of murder in Crime

No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018 but is also indulged in