- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200659 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHIVARAM SINGH S/O BALKISHAN SINGH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 9-532/2C, DATTA NAGAR, NEAR LAL HANUMAN TEMPLE, SHAHABAZAR, KALABURAGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G. G. CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAIPRAKASH S/O RUDRAPPA PATIL, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: THE DEAN OF RAICHUR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER, (A BRANCH OF RAICHUR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER, EARLIER BRANCH OF DHARWAD AGRICULTURE UNIVERISTY), ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102. 2. D.M. MANNUR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: THE DEAN OF PLANNING AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI, Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 NOW RETIRED, R/O. NEAR GULLA BOWDY, BEHIND CHANDRASHEKSAR PATIL STADIUM, KALABURAGI-585102. 3. K. N. KATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN REGISTRAR, AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER, ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI, NOW AT RAICHUR AGRICULTURE, UNIVERISTY RAICHUR-584101. 4. SHARANABASAPPA KODLA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN PSI(2016), RURAL P.S KALABURAGI, NOW AT LOKAYUKTHA OFFICE, AT BIDAR-585401. 5. WAZID PATEL, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN CPI (2016), RURAL P.S NOW WORKING IN CRIMES, S.P, OFFICE, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRL. REVISION PETN. NO.26/2021 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. JMFC KALABURAGI IN PC NO.217/2020 AND TO ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 167, 182, 192, 218, 220, 420, 468, R/W 34 IPC AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. G.G.Chagashetti and Sri. Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Unsuccessful complainant is the petitioner, who had filed a private complaint in P.C. No. 217/2020, on the file of V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, alleging the commission of the offence as punishable under Sections 167, 182, 192, 218, 220, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. After receipt of the complaint, sufficient opportunity was granted for the complainant to establish a case by examining the complainant, witnesses and also placing documentary evidence on record. But such opportunity was not utilized by the complainant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 4. Ultimately after hearing the arguments of the parties, learned trial Magistrate dismissed the private complaint by exercising the power vested in it under Section 203 Cr.P.C., inter alia in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 held as under: “12. I have gone through the entire records placed before the court, the accused No.1 to 5 against whom the complaint has been lodged for act done while discharging public duty are public servants as per section 197 of Cr.P.C. Sanction of Government is necessary. In this regard the complainant has written letter to Governor for sanction on 01.01.2020, it is marked as Ex.P.15, same is posted on 2.1.2020 receipt marked as Ex.P.16 and same is delivered to office address on 16.01.2020, it is marked as Ex.P.17. Thereafter the complainant did not get any reply from office of Governor. Hence, he filled present complaint before this Court on 13.3.2020. The main allegation of the complainant is that all accused have framed incorrect documents and forged the same in order to cause injury to him or his property. In his pleading he himself stated that revenue authorities also aided these accused persons and changed the Survey Number from 36/2 to 36/1. with respect to same he relied on Ex.P.1, 2. 3. 4 and 5. On perusal of the said documents he has purchased property of Sy.No.36/1 in the year 2006 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 same is entered in his name in the year 2009, but on perusal of the RTC which are marked as Ex.P.4 and 5 column No.9 bares name of Karnataka Board of Wakf, Imam and Kitabat (Sunni), Shaik Roza, Gulbarga and column No. 12 bears the name of Karnataka Board of Wakf, Imam and Kitabat (Sunni). Shaik Roza, Gulbarga, The Counsellor, Agriculture University, Raichur, Gulbarga and same is mutated as per MR No.H10/2015-16 dated 21.1.2015 (PÉÆÃ. D) ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ and column No.11 shows that as per the notification of the No.RD/199/LGP 2009 Dated 4.1.2010, No.MWD/216/WES/2009 Dated 29.5.2010, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥Áæ.D.UÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ n¥ÀàtÂ, ¸ÀA/PÀA/¥ÁæDUÀÄ/¨sÀÆ/88/10-11, ¢: 02.04.2011 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀA/PÀA/¨sÀƸÀÄ/ªÀPÀá/03/11-12 : 07.05.20211 ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, PÀ®§ÄgÀV gÀªÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ C¦Ã®/58/2015-16 ¢ 14.10.2015 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 13. In this regard he has not stated how accused persons have framed incorrect documents, framed fabricated documents and what all are those documents, he has not submitted any relevant documents to show his possession over his property till framing incorrect documents. From his own pleadings it is clear that still rights with respect to properties for which he is stating that incorrect documents have been framed by the accused persons. Further allegations against accused No.4 and 5 is that by colluding with other three accused persons has registered false three - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 cases against complainant out of one is resulted in acquittal still two are pending. In generally speaking if any person lodged complaint before police, after preliminary enquiry they register cases whether the said allegations are false or not it is matter of trial before the court. In the instant case which is resulted in acquittal due the prosecution has failed prove case the witnesses turned hostile, it is not that the accused in the case has not at all committed any offences alleged against him in the said case. As stated above when complaint receives, being public servant police will register case after preliminary enquiry. As the complainant himself says that two criminal cases are still pending against him, how could he can say those cases are false cases without trial. 14. Moreover the civil disputes are pending between the complainant and accused No.3 with respect property, unless oud and until civil rights are decided this court cannot come to conclusions that accused persons are framed incorrect documents. Moreover in spite off opportunities given under section 202 of Cr.P.C. the complainant has failed to prove by adducing oral as well as documentary eviderice to issue process against accused persons for alleged offences. This private complainant is lodged are Government Officials, Therefore this court is of the opinion that on basis of discussion above stated the complainant has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 failed to prima-facie case and hence this court answered point No.1 in the Negative.” 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a revision before the District Court in Criminal R.P.No. 26/2021. Learned Judge in the Revisional Court, issued notice, secured the presence of the parties, discussed in detail as to the rival contentions heard on behalf of the parties. 6. On such consideration and discussion, learned Revisional Court did not find any ground whatsoever which is worth in setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate and therefore dismissed the revision petition. Being further aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this court in this revision. 7. Sri. G.G.Chagashetti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, retreating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that, the trial Magistrate and the learned Judge in the Revisional Court, did not appreciate the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 case of the parties in proper manner, and sought for admitting the matter for further consideration. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposes the revisional grounds and contends that, a false complaint came to be filed with an ulterior motive which has been rightly appreciated by trial Magistrate and re-appreciated by the Revisional Court and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the matter on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the matter on record, it is crystal clear that the grievance of the petitioner is that CC No. 400/2016 which was filed by the complainant alleging the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, ended in acquittal on account of false and fabricated materials and therefore action needs to be taken against the concerned. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 11. The learned trial Magistrate after affording necessary opportunities, noticed that complainant did not choose to examine himself and his witnesses to establish the case against the respondents and after hearing the arguments noted that, there are pending civil proceedings and also two more criminal cases and formed an opinion that C.C.No.400/2016 ended in acquittal on account of witnesses turning hostile. 12. Therefore the contentions urged in the complaint did not get probabilized by placing cogent and convincing materials on record which would be prima facie sufficient to issue process to the respondents and dismissed the same. 13. The Learned Judge in the Revisional Court in the light of the revision grounds, re-appreciated the material on record and did not find any material, whereby, the order of the trial Magistrate could have been set aside and matter could have been proceeded against the respondents and rightly dismissed the revision petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2818 CRL.P No. 200659 of 2023 14. When two courts have found that there is no prima facie materials available on record to proceed against the respondents in the private complaint filed by the complainant, this court by exercising inherent power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter by holding a mini trial. 15. Further, no explanation whatsoever is forth coming on record as to why complainant did not choose to examine himself and his witnesses to probabilise the allegations leveled against the respondents, despite granting sufficient opportunity. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court does not find any much less good grounds, to entertain the petition further. Hence, following order: ORDER The petition dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT:PK