- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1777 OF 2020 BETWEEN: BIBI HALEEMA W/O DADAPEER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: FDA, IIND ADDL. CJ AND JMFC, COURT CHITRADURGA, R/AT MANDAKKI BHATTI AREA, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURAGA - 577 501 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. (REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. UMASHANKARAPPA S/O K. RAMAPPA (IN CHARGE SHEET NAME IS MENTIONED AS SRI. UMASHANKAR R.) AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: SHIRESTEDAR, PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATASATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.29/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOLALKERE VIDE ANNEXURE-A (CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 204 AND 166 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984). THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner being the sole accused is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her pending in CC No.29/2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC, Holalkere for the offence punishable under Section 204, 166 of Indian Penal Code( for short 'the IPC') and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 being the Sheristadar working in Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Court, Chitradurga filed the first information with Chitradurga Town police against the petitioner stating that the petitioner was working as Bench clerk in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court. On 18.12.2017, the case file pertaining to MVC - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 No.1325/2015 was taken to the Court Hall. The said file was again sent to Court Hall on 19.12.2017. Later on 11.01.2018, learned Senior Civil Judge disposed of the said MVC by signing the judgment. Later the MVC file never returned to the pending section. The petitioner started giving lame excuses for not returning the original judgment with the signature of the presiding officer. On 11.01.2018, the informant found torn sheets of the original judgment in MVC No.1325/2015 in the table drawer of the petitioner. It is also found that the petitioner had scoured off the original signature of the judicial officer found on the original judgment and therefore, the informant was directed by the learned Judicial officer to lodge the complaint and accordingly, he has lodged the complaint requesting the police to register the case and to investigate into the matter. Accordingly, the investigation was undertaken and charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her. 3. Heard Sri. Ravindra B Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Venkatasathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Sri. Madhukar - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The informant himself said to have found the torn the judgment in MVC No.1325/2015 inside the drawer of the accused. Admittedly, the accused was not in her seat when the informant said to have found the pieces of the judgment. Under such circumstances, contention of the informant cannot be accepted. It is also his contention that no sanction is obtained to prosecute the petitioner and therefore, the petition - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 is liable to be allowed. However, the same is seriously objected by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The informant is a public servant. He is the responsible officer of the Court as he is working as Sheristadar in the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Chitradurga. In his official capacity, he has filed the first information as per the direction of the judicial officer concerned. It is his specific contention that the file pertaining to MVC No.1325/2015 was within the exclusive possession of the petitioner and the same was found missing along with the original judgment after its disposal. It is also his contention that the original judgment was found in the drawer of the petitioner but it was torn into pieces. The signature of the judicial officer was scoured off. Under such circumstances, it is the contention of the informant that the petitioner has committed the offence as stated above. 7. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. There are prima-facie materials to constitute the offence as alleged. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is innocent and has not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 committed any offence. At the best, this could be the defence taken by the accused before the Trial Court. 8. The second contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there is no sanction obtained by the Investigating Officer to prosecute the petitioner and hence the proceeding is to be quashed cannot be accepted. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, when the petitioner was working as a public servant, being the Bench clerk in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, it cannot be said that she has discharged her official duty by tearing the original judgment in MVC No.1325/2015 and scored off the signatures of the judicial officer or it is under colour of her duty. Therefore, prima-facie, I do not find any merits in the petition. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1935 CRL.P No. 1777 of 2020 The observations made herein above are for the purpose of disposing of the petition, the same shall not influence the trial Court, in any manner. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21