[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Madivalappa Desai vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
CRL.P No. 201914 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201914 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O MADIVALAPPA DESAI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: ADITYA TRADING COMPANY,
R/O SHOP NO.121 BEDAANHALL,
MARKET YARD,
SOLAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
UDAGI
THROUGH, YADGIR TOWN POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIST: YADGIR-585201.
KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. DINESH KUMAR
S/O PRAKASH CHAND JAIN
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O SHAH MISRILAL PUKRAJ DALALI,
SHOP NO.53, APMC YARD,
BASAVESHWAR GUNJ, YADGIR.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
CRL.P No. 201914 of 2025
HC-KAR
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR C M, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS
(NEW), 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT, FIR AND FILING OF CHARGE SHEET NOW
PENDING IN C.C.NO.990/2025 (YADGIRI TOWN PS CRIME
NO.24/2024 DISTRICT YADGIR) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC 420, 120-B, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT YADGIR AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C. No.990/2025,
arising out of Crime No.24/2024 of Yadgir Town Police, for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgir.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that,
respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent
No.1-Police on 06.03.2024 alleging that he is a wholesale
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
trader of toor dal. On 21.12.2023, one Balaji Koile Latur
i.e., accused No.1, being a mediator, contacted him over
phone and requested to send 250 quintals of toor dal to
Maheshwari Pulse and accordingly, respondent No.2 sent
the same in a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-52/F-3918 on
22.12.2023 to Yadgir. Likewise, as per the request of
accused No.1 - Balaji, he sent another 250 quintals of toor
dal to Agro Industries, Latur and subsequently on several
occasions he sent toor dal as per the request of accused
No.1 till 30.12.2023 for a total sum of Rs.1,76,29,024/-.
However, accused No.1 failed to make payment, as agreed
by him. As such, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint
against him on 06.03.2024 before respondent No.1-Police,
which registered in Crime No.24/2024 dated 06.03.2024
against accused No.1.
3. During the course of investigation, respondent
No.1-Police recorded the further statement of respondent
No.2 and in the further statement it was stated, in view of
non-payment of the amount by accused No.1 for having
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
purchased the toor dal, respondent No.2 approached the
dealer, where accused No.1 sold the toor dal at Solapur.
At that time, it was revealed that accused No.1 sold two
loads of toor dal to Aradhya traders, Solapur, belonging to
the petitioner/accused No.2. On enquiry, accused No.2
admitted that he had purchased the toor dal from accused
No.1. Hence, the petitioner implicated in the charge sheet
by respondent No.1-Police by arraigning him as accused
No.2. On the strength of the charge sheet, learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against the
petitioner and accused No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner/accused No.2 has preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that, nowhere in the
complaint, respondent No.2 has stated about the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
transaction with the petitioner. It is the specific case of
respondent No.2 that accused No.1 purchased toor dal
from him, as a mediator, to the tune of Rs.1,76,29,024/-.
Thereafter, he failed to make payment. The petitioner was
implicated in the crime only based on the extra judicial
confession made by accused No.1 to respondent No.2 that
he had sold two loads of toor dal to the petitioner.
However, there are no such documents placed by
respondent No.2 to substantiate his claim. In such
circumstances, he prays to quash the proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that now charge sheet has been laid by
respondent No.1-Police against the petitioner and another
and the charge sheet averments discloses that the
petitioner has not paid the amount either to accused No.1
or to respondent No.2, after receiving two loads of toor
dal. In such circumstances, the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC clearly attracts against this petitioner.
Moreover, on demand by respondent No.2 for payment,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
the petitioner threatened him. Hence, according to him, a
prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the prayer
by contending that the petitioner, by colluding with
accused No.1, cheated respondent No.2. Hence, he seeks
to dismiss the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents made available on
record.
9. As could be gathered from records, the
complaint averments disclose no transaction between
respondent No.2 and the petitioner. It is specifically stated
that, from 22.12.2023 till 30.12.2023, accused No.1
received several loads of toor dal from respondent No.2
totaling Rs.1,76,29,024/- and later, he failed to make the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
payment. The FIR also registered against accused No.1.
In the entire charge sheet material, the allegation against
the petitioner is that accused No.1 sent two loads of toor
dal i.e., 250 quintals each to the petitioner. As rightly
contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is
no such document or invoice placed by respondent No.2 to
substantiate that accused No.1 sold toor dal to the
petitioner. Be that as it may, admittedly respondent No.2
had no transaction with the petitioner whatsoever. The
petitioner implicated in the crime only based on the
alleged statement of accused No.1. Now it is settled
position of law that a person cannot be made as an
accused solely based on the voluntary statement of the
co-accused without any corroborative piece of evidence.
10. It is now well settled that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a
frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious.
This would tarnish the image of the person against whom
false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are leveled. The
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v.
State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951,
held that whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with
care and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. On the other hand,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstance emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into
a count the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation.
11. In such circumstances, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 is abuse
of process of Court and the same is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the petitioner/
accused No.2 in C.C. No.990/2025,
arising out of Crime No.24/2024 of
Yadgir Town Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 420,
120-B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1384
HC-KAR
pending on the file Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Yadgir, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
CT-BH
