- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100581 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: ABHISHEK PRAKASH ANKAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR MARADIMATH, GULEDAGUDDA, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADV. FOR SRI. S. B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, (PERTAINING TO TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI). 2. SMT. K. GAYATHRI REDDY, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SPECIAL OFFICER AT VISHWESHWARAYYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL OFFICE, RHCS LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARY NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-56009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 147/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC IV COURT BELAGAVI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 471, AND 420 OF IPC, ON THE COMPLAINT FILED IN TILAKAWADI P.S. BELAGAVI IN CR. NO.85/2017 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND ETC. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Kirtilata, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. 2. The petitioner has filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.147/2021 on the file of the JMFC-IV Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’), insofar as petitioners-accused No.2. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 4. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent-Police alleging that during May 2016, near Ajanta Hotel, accused No.1-Abhishek Burji, received an amount of Rs.18 lakhs on the assurance that he would get an appointment to accused No.2, and also assured that he would get an appointments to CWs.9 to 11 in the Vishweshwarayya Technological University by preparing fabricated documents of appointment order and deputation orders thereby, accused No.2 submitted his appointment and deputation order dated 02.01.2017 to the concerned authorities, thereby the accused persons have cheated and fabricated the documents and used the fabricated documents as genuine documents. 5. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. In turn, Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the accused persons. Taking exception to the same, petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are illegal and liable to be set aside, and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are not made out, much less the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Further, the petitioner was treated as a witness and hence, his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C and later, he has been falsely implicated as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. There are no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. 7. It is further contended that accused No.1- Abhishek Burji, Sunitha Ghorpade and Sanganabasappa Bankapur, who are working in the State intelligence Wing have committed the offence, and the case against them should have been proceeded with. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2, who is a victim of the fraud, being innocent, has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the investigation does not disclose that the petitioner, with the full knowledge that the documents, he was carrying were forged and with intention to cheat anybody acted in pursuance thereof, by reporting for duty. Hence, in the absence of mens-rea and actus-rea, he cannot be compelled to face the trial, which would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence he prayed to allow the petition. 9. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 de facto complainant vehemently contended that accused No.2 is the beneficiary under the entire transaction, who paid bribe to accused No.1, whether he has paid the bribe or his family members paid such bribe to accused No.1, is a mater of trial. The petitioner is now disputing the question of fact which cannot be gone under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 10. Perused the material available on record and as per the prosecution’s case, this petitioner involved in the case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC, which read as follows: “465. Punishment for forgery Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 471. Using as genuine a forged document Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. In the instant case, petitioner/accused No.2 has taken contention that he has not involved in this case. In fact, the entire allegation is against petitioner No.1 only and there is absence of mens-rea and actus-rea, so as to connect petitioner in the case. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner is disputing question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At this juncture, only prima facie case is to be seen in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra and others1. 13. Further, criminal case can be quashed only on the ground that, there is no mens-rea and actus-rea. Whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of entering into the contract, said question has to be decided 1 AIR 2021 SC 1918 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024 in a full fledged trial. Once the cognizable offence is found, the allegations made in the complaint or charge sheet, Court has to conduct mock/trial in the manner as per established under law. Hence, there are no merits in this petition. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed. Note:- The above observations are made only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17