Karnataka High Court
Shri. Kumar S/O Malleshappa Hiregoudra vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102287 OF 2021
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI KUMAR S/O. MALLESHAPPA HIREGOUDRA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. PAMPANGAR, RENEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL NANDEESH HANAMANTAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ADUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S 2. KHUTBUDDIN S/O. IMAMKHASIM DEVIHOSUR,
HARIHAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
Location: High
Court of R/O. HOSALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
Karnataka, NOW AT ANAVATTI, TQ. SORABA,
Dharwad Bench
DIST. SHIMOGA-577413.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY ADUR POLICE
STATION IN CRIME NO.149/2020, CHARGE-SHEET AND ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.60/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.323, 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri. Patil Nandeesh Hanamantagouda and Sri
S.A.Mallur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State.
2. The petitioner - accused has filed this petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.60/2021 pending on the file of
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, Dist: Haveri (Crime
No.149/2020 of Adur P.S) for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
under:
Based on the complaint given by complainant
Khutbuddin Devihosur, respondent No.1/police have
registered the FIR and filed charge-sheet against the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
HC-KAR
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
420, 504, 506 of IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that
the complainant came in contact with petitioner/accused
during the year 2017 and the accused informed the
complainant that he is doing real estate business and he is
aware of MLAs, DCs, SPs, and Ministers, and therefore, he
would facilitate getting a government job and also asked
the complainant if he would get jobs. Accordingly, the
complainant met the accused and requested him to get a
government job for his sister's son. As per the demand of
the accused, complainant/respondent No.2 gave
Rs.1,75,000/- and concerned documents to the accused.
Again on 02.11.2020 at 7:00 p.m, the complainant met
the accused at Tiluvalli bus-stand and at that time, the
accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
complainant. At this juncture, the complainant contended
that he would pay the entire amount only after getting a
government job for his sister's son. Accordingly, the
complainant requested the accused to refund entire
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
HC-KAR
amount that he had paid to the accused. Immediately, the
accused took quarrel with complainant, abused him in
filthy language, and also threatened the complainant with
dire consequences if he requested a refund of money.
Accordingly, a complaint was lodged, which led to the
registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation, and
after completion of the investigation, the investigating
officer filed charge-sheet against the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
4. Taking exception to the same,
petitioner/accused filed this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
submits that the alleged incident had taken place in the
year 2017 and during the year 2019, the complainant
appears to have paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the
accused, but the complaint was lodged in the year 2020
without furnishing any possible explanation, which clearly
implies that FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
HC-KAR
falsely implicate the accused herein. Further, there is no
material placed in order to attract the alleged offences.
The charge-sheet material does not disclose the
commission of alleged offence. Hence, cognizance taken
by the learned Magistrate is without any substance.
Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State
contended that the charge-sheet materials clearly disclose
the commission of aforesaid offences and the veracity of
allegation against the petitioner/accused can be
considered only after a full-fledged trial. Moreover, the
present petition has been filed at the stage when the Court
took cognizance and issued process, whereas the trial
Court framed charges against the accused and now the
matter is set-down for trial. At this juncture, the petition is
not maintainable and once charge is framed, the petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is not maintainable. Hence,
prayed for rejection of petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
HC-KAR
7. Perused the material available on record.
8. The alleged offence took place on 02.11.2020
and complaint was lodged on 03.11.2020. As per the
contents of charge-sheet, the accused cheated the
complainant in order to get job to the son-in-law of
complainant. This petition was filed on 25.11.2021. As per
the order-sheet maintained by the trial Court, on
25.11.2021, the Court issued process against accused and
charge was not framed. Now the charge has been framed
and matter is set-down for trial. This aspect is not
disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore,
the framing of charges signifies that the Court, after
perusing charge-sheet material, believes that there is
sufficient reason to proceed with trial.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments held
that once charges are framed and if the matter is set-
down for trial, Courts must slow in quashing the criminal
proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, or the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676
HC-KAR
Court's generally reluctant to interfere with the trial
process after charges have been framed, unless there are
exceptional circumstances. In this case, the accused
disputing the question of fact. This Court cannot delve
into disputed question of facts, while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the
matter is set-down for trial. Hence, there is no merit in
this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM /CT-AN
