- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4062 CRL.P No. 102454 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102454 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HONNURAPPA S/O. KURUBARA MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS, R/O: VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI. 2. T. RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O. LATE DODDANA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT: 71 YEARS, R/O: HARAGINADONI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI. 3. JAMBANA GOUDA S/O. LATE DODDANA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT: 75 YEARS, R/O: HARAGINADONI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY P.S.I. KUDITHINI POLICE STATION, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI, REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. T. DODDA BASAVANAGOUDA S/O. LATE T. BASAVANA GOUDA @ T. BASANNA, AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, R/O: HARIGINADONI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI-583106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRAKASH S.KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR R2) MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.03.03 12:58:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4062 CRL.P No. 102454 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.07.2016, FIR, IN CRIME NO.120/2016, REGISTERED BY PSI, KUDITHINI, BALLARI TQ & DIST. (R1), FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 416, 419, 420, 504 & 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND ALL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN P.C.NO.215/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ORDER FOR REGISTERING THE CASE AS C.C.NO.1613/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BALLARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1/State and Sri. Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel has filed power on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that Thimmanagouda was the owner of the subject land and, as he had no heirs, he gifted the land to the father of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant’s father was in possession and enjoyment of the land. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with each other, executed a registered sale deed in favor of accused No. 3 in relation to the subject land. 3. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, submitted a ‘B Report’. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and passed an order taking cognizance of offences - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4062 CRL.P No. 102454 of 2019 punishable under Sections 416, 419, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contends that the sale deed was executed on 31.05.1995, and a complaint with similar allegations was previously lodged by the complainant’s mother before the jurisdictional police. The police, after inquiry, had closed the complaint by issuing an endorsement stating that the dispute was purely civil in nature. Despite this, the present private complaint was filed, suppressing the earlier complaint. Further, the counsel argues that the learned Magistrate, before recording the sworn statement, ought to have either accepted or rejected the ‘B Report’. However, without rejecting the ‘B Report’, the Magistrate recorded the sworn statement and took cognizance, which is impermissible. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar v. K.M.C. Vasantha. 5. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the protest petition and the sworn statement recorded discloses the commission of offence alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference. Thus, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4062 CRL.P No. 102454 of 2019 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar’s case (supra), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal [(1980) SCC 91], held as follows: • If the Court, upon considering the material in the ‘B Summary Report’, is of the opinion that a cognizable case is made out against the accused, the court can take cognizance and issue process. • If the court decides to reject the ‘B Summary Report’, it must express its judicial opinion, applying its mind to the contents of the report. Upon rejecting the ‘B Summary Report’, the court must consider the private complaint or protest petition to ascertain whether the allegations therein constitute a cognizable offence. The Court can then take cognizance and proceed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 8. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, without rejecting the ‘B Report’, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offences, which is contrary to the guidelines laid down in Dr. Ravikumar’s case (supra). 9. The allegations in the complaint pertain to accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly colluding and executing a registered sale deed in favor of accused No. 3 on 31.05.1995. A similar allegation was made in a complaint lodged by the complainant’s mother before the jurisdictional police, which was closed on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature. Furthermore, the complainant’s mother has filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 280/2016) seeking partition and separate possession of the subject land and cancellation of the sale deed executed in favor of accused No. 3. The validity of the sale deed is thus pending adjudication before the civil court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4062 CRL.P No. 102454 of 2019 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 SCC 582] observed: “The object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report have been highlighted time and again. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which are products of afterthought. A delayed report not only loses the advantage of spontaneity but also risks introducing a colored version, an exaggerated account, or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that any delay in lodging the report be satisfactorily explained.” 11. The sale deed in question was executed in 1995, and the private complaint has been filed more than 20 years later. When the validity of the sale deed is already under consideration before the civil court, the continuation of criminal proceedings based on the private complaint would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1613/2019 pending on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4062 CRL.P No. 102454 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [HONNURAPPA S/O KURUBARA MALLESHAPPA, AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, AND ANOTHER] 28.02.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Heard on IA No.1/2025 to recall the order dated 21.1.2025. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the application, IA No.1/2025 is allowed. The order dated 21.01.2025 is recalled and petition is restored to file. Sri. Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel has filed power on behalf of respondent No.2. Sd/- ( HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53