[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurusiddappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201683 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O JAMBAYYA
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: FDA AT SEDAM TAHASIL OFFICE,
TQ: SEDAM,
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585222
R/O H.NO.104-105,
REGULAR CAMP, JOWKU
HAMPADEVANAHALLI
DISTRICT BELLARY-583129
2. SRI. ARJUN S/O LAXMAN
Digitally signed by AGE: 47 YEARS,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI OCC: SDA AT SEDAM TAHASIL OFFICE,
Location: HIGH R/O H.NO.11- NO.11/882
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SHIVARAJ TAILORS,
S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, BRAHMAPUR
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BABU H METAGUDDA AND
SRI. INDRADHANUSH CHAVAN ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SEDAM POLICE STATION,
REP. BY HCGP, SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
AT KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. SHRIYANK DHANASHREE
TAHASILDAR,
SEDAM TAHASIL OFFICE,
SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-585222
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.
99/2025, REGISTERED BY SEDAM POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 336(3), 336(4), 340(1),
340(2), 316(3), 316(4), 316(5), AND 318(4) OF BNS, 2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
AND JMFC SEDAM UPON SUCH TERMS THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO SECURE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
CRL.P No. 201683 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the
FIR, complaint and the proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.99/2025,
registered by Sedam Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 336(4), 340(1),
340(2), 316(3), 316(4), 316(5) and 318(4) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the BNS, 2023'],
presently pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and
JMFC, Sedam.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police
alleging that petitioner No.1 is working as FDA and
petitioner No.2 is working as SDA in the Tashildar Office,
Sedam and they were working as case worker in Bhoomi
Sankalana and also entrusted with Central and State
Elections, land matters, all types of meetings, DCB,
Jamabandi as well as Audit section of respondent No.2. It
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
is stated in the complaint that, on 16.05.2025 in the
evening hours, one Kaviraj, SDA and record keeper of the
office of respondent No.2, verified the passbook bearing
account No.62393154734 of State Bank of India and
observed that on 22.04.2025 an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
was withdrawn by self through cheque bearing No.599508
dated 21.04.2025 and another cheque bearing No.599515
dated 24.04.2025 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was
withdrawn by self on 02.05.2025 and in total
Rs.3,00,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioners by
misusing their official power without seeking permission
and approval of the higher officer. The said amount was
reserved for Aadhar linking and Bhoo Suraksha Yojana.
The said aspect was brought to the knowledge of
respondent No.2 and in-turn she verified the cheques and
found that her signature was forged and Rs.2,50,000/-
was withdrawn by petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- was
withdrawn by petitioner No.2. As such, respondent No.2
lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
24.05.2025, which registered in Crime No.99/2025 for the
aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the
registration of FIR and complaint, the petitioners/accused
are before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that the
amount was withdrawn at the instance of respondent
No.2-Tahsildar and thereafter on her instruction, the same
was re-deposited by the petitioners into the account. He
also contented that, during the course of investigation it
was revealed that the signature found on the cheques is of
respondent No.2-Tahsildar and there was no such forgery
by the petitioners. He also contended that, before
prosecuting against these petitioners, respondent No.2 has
not obtained the sanction as per law, since the sanction
was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner instead of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
District Commissioner. He further contended that
respondent No.1-Police invoked Sections 336(3), 336(4),
316(5) cannot go hand in hand as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Delhi Race Club
(1940) Ltd. & Ors V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
in Criminal Appeal No.3114/2024. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submits that on perusal of the complaint
averments, it is specifically stated that these petitioners
being the FDA and SDA have withdrawn the amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively from the
Government account which belongs to Bhoo Suraksha and
Aadhar linking schemes by forging the signature of
respondent No.2-Tahsildar on the cheques and the said
aspect was very much admitted by them and they
re-deposited the said amount in the said account. In such
circumstances, there are prima facie materials forthcoming
against the petitioners.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
6. He also contended that, as per the settled
position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Om Prakash Yadav vs. Niranjana Kumar Upadhyay
and Others reported in 2024 INSC 979, any offence
alleged to have been committed by him while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
Further, he contended that, now the investigation is under
progress and the admitted signature of respondent No.2
and the questioned signature on the cheques were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory for examination by the
Investigating Officer and the Investigation Officer yet to
receive the report.
7. He also contended that the findings of the
District Commissioner at Annexure-M cannot be taken on
its face value for the reason that the investigation is still
under progress. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also
opposed the petition on the ground that, at this premature
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
stage when the investigation is under progress, a petition
under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents available on record.
10. As could be gathered from records, on careful
perusal of the complaint averments, respondent
No.2/Tahsildar has specifically stated that the petitioners
being FDA and SDA of the Tahsildar office, have illegally
withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in total i.e.,
Rs.2,50,000/- by petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- by
petitioner No.2 by depositing two cheques. It is stated in
the complaint that those cheques bear the forged
signature of respondent No.2.
11. On instructions, learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that the disputed signatures on the
cheques and admitted signatures of respondent No.2 were
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
sent for FSL by the Investigating Officer and the said
report is not yet received from the FSL Office. Moreover, it
is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the amount withdrawn by them was re-
deposited in the account as per the advice of respondent
No.2.
12. In such circumstances, the entire matter is at a
premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded
with, only some preliminary efforts were taken on the date
of registration of the case. The evidence has to be
gathered after a thorough investigation and to be placed
before the Court on the basis of which, the Court can
come to a conclusion one way or another on the plea of
false implication or malafide. If the allegations are bereft
of truth and made with malicious intention, the
investigation will reveal the same. At this stage, when
there are only allegations and recriminations but no
evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the
investigation and render a finding on the question of false
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
implication or malafide on the materials presently
available. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint
should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated
plea of false implication. Even otherwise, the
complainant/respondent No.2-Tahsildar has no such
personal animosity with these petitioners to lodge a false
complaint, who are none other than the officials of the
Tahsildar Office. The complaint averments disclose the
serious allegations of forgery by misappropriating the fund
belonging to Aadhar linking and Bhoo Suraksha schemes.
13. As far as the last limb of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that respondent No.2 has not obtained
valid sanction before prosecuting the petitioners is
concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Yadav
(supra), summarized the position of law in respect of
sanction as under:
(i) The object behind the enactment
of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible
public servants against institution of possibly
false or vexatious criminal proceedings for
offences alleged to have been committed by
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
them while they are acting or purporting to act
in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the
public servants are not prosecuted for anything
which is done by them in the discharge of
their official duties, without any reasonable
cause. The provision is in the form of an
assurance to the honest and sincere officers so
that they can perform their public duties
honestly, to the best of their ability and in
furtherance of public interest, without being
demoralized.
(ii) The expression "any offence alleged to
have been committed by him while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty" in Section 197 CrPC must neither be
construed narrowly nor widely and the correct
approach would be to strike a balance between
the two extremes. The section should be
construed strictly to the extent that its
operation is limited only to those acts which are
discharged in the "course of duty". However,
once it has been ascertained that the act or
omission has indeed been committed by the
public servant in the discharge of his duty, then
a liberal and wide construction must be given
to a particular act or omission so far as its
"official" nature is concerned.
(iii) It is essential that the Court while
considering the question of applicability
of Section 197 CrPC truly applies its mind to
the factual situation before it. This must be
done in such a manner that both the aspects
are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public
servant is protected under Section 197 CrPC if
the act complained of falls within his official
duty and on the other, appropriate action be
allowed to be taken if the act complained of is
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
not done or purported to be done by the public
servant in the discharge of his official duty.
(iv) A public servant can only be said to
act or purport to act in the discharge of his
official duty, if his act is such that it lies within
the scope and range of his official duties. The
act complained of must be integrally connected
or directly linked to his duties as a public
servant for the purpose of affording protection
under Section 197 CrPC."
14. In the instant case, since the petitioners are
involved in serious charges of misappropriation of public
fund that too by forging the signatures of respondent
No.2, the same cannot be termed as official duty.
15. The other ground urged by the petitioners that
Sections 336(3), 336(4), 316(5) of BNS, cannot go hand
in hand, also cannot be considered at this premature stage
since the investigation is under the initial stage and the
respondent No.1-Police has to file charge sheet. In that
view of the matter, the proceedings cannot be quashed at
this stage. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1487
HC-KAR
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
CT-BH
