Karnataka High Court
Dr. Brhmanand vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
CRL.P No. 201607 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201607 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DR. BRHMANAND
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O H.NO.8-11-254,
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by RENUKA THROUGH MARKET POLICE STATION, BIDAR,
Location: HIGH DIST. BIDAR,
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585107.
2. NAGAPPA S/O BHIMAGOND KHANDBALLE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O GADGI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
CRL.P No. 201607 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.3887/2022
ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.134/2012 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS
120-B, 209, 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 471 READ WITH 149 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, AND THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE
DATED 01.10.2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IST ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC-II AT BIDAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This petition is filed by accused No.3, a practicing
doctor at Siddharudha Charitable Hospital, Bidar who had
treated one lady by name Chinnamma.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one
Nagappa, the brother-in-law of Chinnamma, lodged a
complaint alleging that Chinnamma was married to
Shivaraj @ Shivgond, and the couple had no children. It is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
HC-KAR
alleged that the properties in question are ancestral in
nature and that, upon the demise of Shivaraj @ Shivgond,
Chinnamma, being his widow, succeeded to her husband's
estate. The complaint further alleges that Chinnamma died
intestate, and after her death, the accused persons
fabricated and brought into existence a false document
styled as a "Gift Deed" purportedly executed in favour of
Prabhakar, S/o Ramayya (accused No.4).
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the
present petitioner, who is a medical practitioner, allegedly
assisted accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 in the preparation of
the aforesaid forged document by issuing a medical
certificate certifying that Chinnamma was in a sound and
disposing state of mind at the relevant point of time.
Based on this allegation, the jurisdictional police conducted
an investigation and have now laid a charge-sheet
arraying the present petitioner as accused No.3, on the
ground that he had treated Chinnamma and allegedly
facilitated the execution of the impugned document.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has placed
strong reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition
No.200704/2023. In the said case, the prime accused,
namely accused No.1, had sought quashing of the
proceedings arising out of the same transaction. The Co-
ordinate Bench, by order dated 24.07.2023, allowed the
petition and quashed the proceedings insofar as they
pertain to accused No.1, holding that the allegations did
not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-defacto complainant and the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1-State, referring to the charge-sheet material,
vehemently contended that there exist certain materials
prima facie indicating the petitioner's involvement in the
alleged acts. They submitted that the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench, quashing the proceedings against accused
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
HC-KAR
No.1, cannot automatically be extended to the benefit of
the present petitioner, as the nature of the allegations
against him stands on a distinct footing and requires
independent consideration.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on a careful perusal of the charge-sheet material, this
Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to ascertain
whether any prima facie case is made out against the
present petitioner. Except for a mere reference to the
petitioner's name in Column No.17 of the charge-sheet,
there is absolutely no material indicating his active
participation or complicity in the alleged offences. The
Investigating Officer has not collected any substantive or
corroborative evidence that could justify the petitioner's
prosecution.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the prime accused,
namely accused No.1, had earlier approached this Court in
Criminal Petition No.200704/2023, wherein this Court,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
HC-KAR
after a detailed evaluation of the same set of allegations
and materials, was pleased to quash the proceedings as
against him. When the principal accused in the alleged
offence has already been discharged from criminal
prosecution, continuation of proceedings against the
present petitioner, who is merely a medical practitioner
alleged to have issued a certificate in the ordinary course
of his professional duty, would serve no meaningful
purpose.
8. A practicing doctor who had attended to
Chinnamma during her lifetime cannot be subjected to
criminal prosecution in the absence of specific, cogent, and
incriminating material showing his intentional participation
in the alleged acts of forgery or conspiracy. The issuance
of a medical certificate, by itself, without proof of collusion
or mala fides, cannot attract criminal liability. The
prosecution, therefore, appears to be based on
presumptions rather than evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
HC-KAR
9. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that
the Co-ordinate Bench, while quashing the proceedings
against accused No.1, has already examined the nature of
allegations and found them to be devoid of criminal intent.
The present case stands on an even weaker footing, as
there are no independent allegations against the petitioner
except a passing reference to his name. Even if the entire
charge-sheet material is taken at face value, it does not
disclose the ingredients of any of the offences alleged.
Allowing the proceedings to continue in such
circumstances would amount to harassment and an abuse
of the process of law.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent the abuse of judicial process, it is just and
proper to invoke the inherent powers vested under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5885
HC-KAR
11. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.3887/2022, arising
out of Crime No.134/2012, registered by the
Market Police Station, Bidar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 209, 420, 423,
424, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, and the order of cognizance
dated 01.10.2022 pending on the file of the I
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar, are
hereby quashed insofar as the present
petitioner is concerned.
(iii) In view of the disposal of the main petition, any
pending interlocutory applications do not
survive for consideration and stand disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT: SI
