[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mantagoud vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1913
CRL.P No. 200333 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200333 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MANTAGOUD S/O ADDIVEPPAGOUDA BIRADAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BANATTI VILLAGE (P.A)
DIST: VIJAYAPURA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH A UPLAONKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA THE BASAVANA BAGEWADI POLICE STATION
DATTATRAYA UDAGI DIST: VIJAYAPURA
Location: HIGH NOW REPRESENTED BY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2123/2025 (CRIME NO.09/2025 OF BASAVANA
BAGEWADI POLICE STATION, DIST: VIJAYPURA), FOR THE
OFFENCES U/SEC. 288 OF BNS AND SECTION 9(B) OF
EXPLOSIVE ACT 1884, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BASAVANA BAGEWADI, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1913
CRL.P No. 200333 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 proceedings against
petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.2123/2025, arising out of
Crime No.09/2025, registered by the Basavana Bagewadi Police
Station, Dist: Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under
sections 288 of BNS and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act,
1884 (for short 'the Act'), pending on the file of Civil Judge and
JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, the Police officer
of Basavana Bagewadi Police Station i.e., complainant received
a credible information that, explosive like Apex power-90, was
illegally transporting from M/s. Sai Traders, belonging to
accused No.2-Prasannakumar of Yalwar village, in the Bolero
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/AB-0711, which was kept
backside of the vehicle and departing towards Yalwar to
Ingaleshwar-Basavana Bagewadi through Muttagi within the
limits of Jainapur village, without any precaution and license
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1913
HC-KAR
from Government. Thereafter, he along with the panchas
conducted a raid and on enquiry, accused No.1 stated that he
purchased the same from accused No.2 without any licence. As
such, the complainant seized the explosives under a
panchanama and arrested accused No.1. Based on his
voluntary statement, petitioner/accused No.3 was implicated in
the crime. Subsequently, respondent-Police conducted the
investigation and laid charge sheet against petitioner and
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforementioned offences.
Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused
No.3 filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that, petitioner/accused
No.3 was implicated in the crime solely based on the voluntary
statement of accused No.1. He also contended that, petitioner
was a licensed seller of explosives and by placing the license,
he submitted that, despite possessing valid license and without
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1913
HC-KAR
issuing any show cause notice as contemplated under the Act,
petitioner is implicated in the crime. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent-State opposed the petition and prays
to dismiss the same.
6. 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.
7. As could be gathered from records, based on the
credible information, the PSI conducted a raid within the limits
of Jainapur village, where he found accused No.1 along with the
explosives stated supra. On enquiry, accused No.1 revealed
that the same was purchased from accused No.2. The learned
counsel for petitioner placed the license obtained by him for
supply and transport of the explosives and the same depicts
that the said licence is valid from 20.03.2016 to 31.03.2028.
Even otherwise, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for
petitioner, except the voluntary statement of accused No.1,
absolutely no other materials are placed against the petitioner
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1913
HC-KAR
to substantiate that accused No.1 purchased the same from
him.
8. In such circumstance, considering the aspect that
petitioner had valid license to sell and transport the explosive
and solely based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1
implicated in the crime and now it is well settled that, solely
based on the voluntary statement of co-accused, the other
accused cannot be implicated in the crime without any
corroborative piece of evidence. Hence, I am of the
considered view that, continuation of the criminal proceedings
against petitioner/accused No.3 is clear abuse of process of
Court. Even, if the entire allegation in the FIR and charge sheet
accepted on its face value, even then, the same do not prima
facie constitute an offences charge sheeted against
petitioner/accused No.3. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1913
HC-KAR
ii. The proceedings against petitioner
/accused No.3 in C.C.No.2123/2025, arising out
of Crime No.09/2025, registered by the
Basavana Bagewadi Police Station, Dist:
Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under
sections 288 of BNS and Section 9(B) of the
Explosives Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act'),
pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Basavana Bagewadi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53
CT-BH
