Karnataka High Court
Kuberappa S/O Chikkappa Pawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101442 OF 2019 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101869 OF 2019 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101442 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. VITTAL RAMAPPA MALAGIMANI,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: RTD. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICE FCI,
R/O: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
2. DR. KRISHNAPPA BHIKKAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: RTD. DISTRICT SURGEON,
R/O. BELADADI TANDA, TQ. & DIST. GADAG,
NOW R/O: KRIPA NURSING HOME, KHB COLONY,
SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
VINAYAKA
BV
3. SHANTA VITTAL MALAGIMANI,
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.15 10:16:54
+0530 R/O: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
4. SMT. KAMALA @ KAMALAVVA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELADADI TANDA, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG.
NOW R/O: KRIPA NURSING HOME, KHB COLONY,
SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, R.L. SHEELVANT
AND M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION.
2. SHANTAWWA W/O KUBERAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: A/P: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES FOR R2;
SRI. PRAVEEN UPPER, A.G.A. FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.
618/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC-II COURT AT GADAG, REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 323, 354, 504, 506
R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY &
ETC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101869 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. KUBERAPPA S/O BHIKKAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
2. GURURAJ S/O KUBERAPPA PAWAR,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. RAVIRAJ S/O KUBERAPPA PAWAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR AND K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. VITTHAL S/O RAMAPPA MALAGIMANI,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER,
R/O BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPER, A.G.A. FOR R1;
SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT AND M.L. VANTI,
ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.303/2018 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.527/2019 ON THE
FIEE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II COURT, GADAG,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
448, 323, 354, 504 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
Since the parties in both these criminal petitions are
one and the same and FIRs have been registered at the
instance of both the sides against each other, these
petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIRs registered against
both the parties and to quash all further proceedings
thereto.
3. It is not disputed that the parties are related to each
other. It is also not disputed that petitioners No.1 and 2
in Crl. P. No. 101442/2019 are residing in a house
constructed by the husband of respondent No.2. It is
clarified that petitioner No.2 is a Doctor who is residing at
Sirsi and his native place is Beladadi Tandi and he had
come to his native place a few days prior to the incident,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
for attending Jatra. But it is a fact that the second
petitioner came and stayed in the residence of petitioner
No.1, which was a building, admittedly constructed by the
husband of the second respondent who is incidentally the
co-brother of petitioner No.1. It is also not disputed that
petitioner No.1 has filed suits in O.S. No. 37/2024 and
O.S. No. 384/2024 against the second respondent and her
family members. One suit is for recovery of a sum of
Rs.28,75,000/- and the other suit is for injunction to
restrain defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the property where admittedly petitioner
No.1 is residing. It is also not disputed that the second
respondent along with her family members has also filed a
suit O.S. No. 165/2024 for injunction.
4. On the basis of the material available on record it is
clear that an FIR was registered on 22.10.2018 at about
8:15 p.m. by petitioner No.1 against the husband and
sons of the second respondent herein. The complaint talks
of an incident stated to have taken place the previous day,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
viz., 21.10.2018, in the residence of the first petitioner.
The next day, viz., on 23.10.2018, an FIR is registered at
the behest of respondent No.2 herein in respect of an
incident said to have occurred previous day, viz., on
22.10.2018, at about 10.00 a.m.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on both the sides, this Court is of the
considered opinion that a civil dispute between the parties
is sought to be converted into criminal proceedings. The
petitioners herein are aged between 70 to 78. Moreover
during the course of these proceedings petitioners No.3
and 4 have died. The civil dispute between the parties is
that petitioner No.1 has made various payments
commencing from the year 1971 to 2017. It is his
contention that the second respondent owes the 1st
petitioner a sum of Rs.28,75,000/-. However, learned
counsel for the second respondent has pointed out to the
statement filed along with the plaint in O.S. No. 32/2024
that even according to the plaintiff, he paid to the husband
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
of the second respondent herein, various amount between
1971 to 2017. The learned counsel would therefore
submit that it is clear from the said statement that the
claim is time barred. Nevertheless, there are certain other
transactions between the parties and the fact that
petitioner No.1 was admittedly permitted to reside in the
house of the second respondent and her husband shows
that the parties have, by their conduct, adjusted the
money earlier lent by the 1st petitioner by permitting him
to stay in the house of the second respondent. It is
therefore the contention of the second respondent that she
or her husband do not owe any money to the first
petitioner. On the other hand the second respondent and
her husband are now seeking to evict the first petitioner
from the house. It also seems that the first petitioner is
trying to demolish the said house and construct his own
house in the adjoining premises.
6. Having regard to all these incidents and facts, this
Court is of the considered opinion that civil dispute
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
between the parties are sought to be converted into
criminal litigation. With this background, when the Court
looks into the complaint lodged by both the parties and
the allegations regarding the wounds suffered, and having
regard to the wound certificates, this Court finds only
minor abrasions and bruises. First petitioner was aged
about 70 years and the second petitioner is aged about 78
years when they filed the petition in the year 2019. Now
both of them are aged 76 and 84. On the other hand,
petitioners in the connected criminal petition, though are
of lesser age when compared to the petitioners in the first
petition, nevertheless the first petitioner who is the co-
brother of the first petitioner in the other matter is also
aged about 65 years.
7. Learned counsel for the second respondent and the
petitioner in the connected petition is right in his
submission while pointing out to a recent decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. Vs.
The State of Haryana & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
1433/2024 dated 07.03.2024, where the Apex Court
noticed another decision in the case of Paramjeet Bara
V. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.
2069/2012) where it was held that, 'a complaint disclosing
civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But
the High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available
and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the
High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court'.
8. Similarly, in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs.
NEPC India Ltd. And Others1, the Apex Court held that
'it is necessary to take note of a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal
case. This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and
do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/
creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family
(2006) 6 SCC 736
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/ families. There is also an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement.
Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not
involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through
criminal prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged'. In the same judgment the Apex Court also
noticed a earlier decision in the case of G. Sagar Suri v.
State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] where it was held as
follows:
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil
nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing process, a
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For
the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is
to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
9. Having regard to the exposition of the position of
law, which guide this Court while considering such cases,
under Section 482 of the CrP.C., this Court is of the
considered opinion that both the criminal prosecutions
have to be set aside while quashing the two FIRs.
10. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
Both the criminal petitions are allowed.
Consequently, Crime No. 305/2018 registered in
Gadag Rural Police registered for the offences punishable
under Section 323, 448, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC
pending on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC-II Court, Gadag in C.C. No. 618/2019, is hereby
quashed and set aside. So also, Crime No. 303/2018
registered in Gadag Rural Police registered for the offences
punishable under Section 323, 448, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34
of IPC pending on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
HC-KAR
and JMFC-II Court, Gadag in C.C. No. 527/2019, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
BVV, CT:VP
