- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100369 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. VINAY S/O. HEMARADDDI NEELARADDI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. CRUSHER BUSINESS, R/O. RENUKAMBA COLONY, LAXMINAGAR, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN C. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, (HUNAGUND POLICE STATION, HUNAGUND, DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE) 2. SRI VENKANGOUDA S/O. VIRUPAXGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADIWAL INAM, TAL. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 438 R/W. 442 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.84/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNAGUND DATED 22.07.2024 UPON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C. AND THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED BE DISCHARGED FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 418 AND 420 OF I.P.C. IN CC NO.84/2022. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:37:07 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Sachin C. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate rejecting the application seeking discharge of the accused from the case by order dated 22.07.2024. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner herein by Hungunda Police in respect of Crime No.36/2021 which is now pending in CC No.84/2022. 3.2. Petitioner appeared before the Court and filed an application seeking discharge. In the application, it is contended by the accused that charge sheet contains are prima - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 facie false facts and did not make out any offence whatsoever muchless offence under Section 420 and 418 o IPC. 3.3. No doubt, money that has been flown into the account of the revision petitioner is in respect of some other transaction and there is a civil dispute inasmuch as legal notice came to be issued. Therefore, parallel criminal proceeding is incorrect and sought for discharge of the accused from the criminal case. 3.4. The prosecution filed detailed objection by contending that material collected by the investigation agency in the form of statements made by C.W.8 to 10 and in all, accused got transferred the money to his account in a sum of Rs.98,55,052/-. Prima facie documentary evidence collected by the prosecution would go to show that accused induced the complainant and C.W.8 to 10 to part away the valuable consideration assuring them that they would be inducted as partners in the Vaishnavi Stone Crusher Business and did not do so. Therefore, charge sheet materials would prima facie establish all ingredients to attract the offence under Section 418 and 420 of IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 4. Learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of both sides and by impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner. 5. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that matter is of civil nature and legal notice was already issued by the revision petitioner. In respect of civil dispute, approaching the police and pressurizing the revision petitioner to settle the civil dispute is totally uncalled for which has lost sight by the learned Trial Magistrate while considering the application seeking for discharge and wrongly dismissed the said application resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the matter for further consideration. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned order by contending that prima facie materials collected by the investigation officer shows that there is a clear case of fraud played by the accused not only to the complainant but also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 C.W.8 to 10 and similarly placed persons and petitioner has cheated the complainant and others to the tune of Rs.98,55,052/-. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record including the impugned order, it is crystal clear that charge sheet came to be filed by the investigation agency after collecting necessary documents which are in the form of bank transfer details and also the documents as to the money that has been flown from the account of the complainant and C.W.8 to 10 to account of the accused to the tune of Rs.98,55,052/-. 10. According to the complainant, said money got transferred with an assurance that he would be inducted as partner in the Vaishnavi Stone Crusher Business but failed to do so. Therefore, prima facie it is not a mere case of civil dispute but there is an element of cheating at the inception itself. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 11. Admittedly, revision petitioner not only failed to induct the complainant and others as partners to the said business but also failed to repay the amount received by him which are by way of bank transfer. 12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and following the principles of law that is governing the field of considering the discharge application, learned Trial Magistrate rightly rejected the application seeking discharge. 13. Further, the defence as is sought to be portrayed by the accused needs to be established during trial and this Court is precluded from holding a mini trial while considering the revisional grounds. 14. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate rejecting the application seeking for discharge is just and proper and therefore, does not call for interference. 15. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6123 CRL.RP No. 100369 of 2024 ii. However, dismissal of the revision petition shall not come in the way of revision petitioner establishing his defence before the Trial Court in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35