- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3156 CRL.P No. 100440 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100440 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PASHUPATI S/O. VEERAPPA KERUDI AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, R/O. HAUNSBHAVI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SHANMUKHAYYA S/O. BANGARAYYA MALIMATH AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. CLAIMS TO BE A SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. HAUNSBHAVI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2016 DATED 27/08/2019 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND THE ORDER PASSED IN C.MISC. NO.24/2011 DATED 04/08/2015 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR AND DIRECT THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TO RECONSIDER THE R.A.NO.11/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3156 CRL.P No. 100440 of 2020 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. seeking an enquiry into an alleged offence committed by the respondent under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the application, ruling it was not maintainable as the trial court had authorized an officer to file the complaint. The Sessions Judge upheld this decision, leading to the current petition. 2. The petitioner seeks an enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. for false evidence provided by the respondent in a civil case (O.S.No.84/2001). Section 340 deals with offences mentioned in Section 195, specifically false evidence presented in court proceedings. Under Section 195, no court can take cognizance of offences under Sections 193-196 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless the court or an authorized officer files a written complaint. 3. The trial court wrongly held that the complaint should be filed by the court where the offence occurred. This order is contrary to Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra, clarified that no statutory requirement exists to give a hearing to the accused before initiating proceedings under Section 340. Section 341 allows an appeal, but it does not mandate a hearing before filing the complaint. 5. In view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 and the ruling in Pritish, the order passed by the trial court is legally unsustainable. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3156 CRL.P No. 100440 of 2020 6. Therefore, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekeruru, is set aside. The case is remanded for the trial court to conduct an enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69