- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102287 OF 2021 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI KUMAR S/O. MALLESHAPPA HIREGOUDRA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PAMPANGAR, RENEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PATIL NANDEESH HANAMANTAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD. 2. KHUTBUDDIN S/O. IMAMKHASIM DEVIHOSUR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. HOSALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, NOW AT ANAVATTI, TQ. SORABA, DIST. SHIMOGA-577413. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY ADUR POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.149/2020, CHARGE-SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.60/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.323, 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Patil Nandeesh Hanamantagouda and Sri S.A.Mallur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. 2. The petitioner – accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.60/2021 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, Dist: Haveri (Crime No.149/2020 of Adur P.S) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 of IPC. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: Based on the complaint given by complainant Khutbuddin Devihosur, respondent No.1/police have registered the FIR and filed charge-sheet against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 of IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant came in contact with petitioner/accused during the year 2017 and the accused informed the complainant that he is doing real estate business and he is aware of MLAs, DCs, SPs, and Ministers, and therefore, he would facilitate getting a government job and also asked the complainant if he would get jobs. Accordingly, the complainant met the accused and requested him to get a government job for his sister’s son. As per the demand of the accused, complainant/respondent No.2 gave Rs.1,75,000/- and concerned documents to the accused. Again on 02.11.2020 at 7:00 p.m, the complainant met the accused at Tiluvalli bus-stand and at that time, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. At this juncture, the complainant contended that he would pay the entire amount only after getting a government job for his sister’s son. Accordingly, the complainant requested the accused to refund entire - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 amount that he had paid to the accused. Immediately, the accused took quarrel with complainant, abused him in filthy language, and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he requested a refund of money. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged, which led to the registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation, and after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4. Taking exception to the same, petitioner/accused filed this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2017 and during the year 2019, the complainant appears to have paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the accused, but the complaint was lodged in the year 2020 without furnishing any possible explanation, which clearly implies that FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 falsely implicate the accused herein. Further, there is no material placed in order to attract the alleged offences. The charge-sheet material does not disclose the commission of alleged offence. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without any substance. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. 6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State contended that the charge-sheet materials clearly disclose the commission of aforesaid offences and the veracity of allegation against the petitioner/accused can be considered only after a full-fledged trial. Moreover, the present petition has been filed at the stage when the Court took cognizance and issued process, whereas the trial Court framed charges against the accused and now the matter is set-down for trial. At this juncture, the petition is not maintainable and once charge is framed, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is not maintainable. Hence, prayed for rejection of petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The alleged offence took place on 02.11.2020 and complaint was lodged on 03.11.2020. As per the contents of charge-sheet, the accused cheated the complainant in order to get job to the son-in-law of complainant. This petition was filed on 25.11.2021. As per the order-sheet maintained by the trial Court, on 25.11.2021, the Court issued process against accused and charge was not framed. Now the charge has been framed and matter is set-down for trial. This aspect is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the framing of charges signifies that the Court, after perusing charge-sheet material, believes that there is sufficient reason to proceed with trial. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments held that once charges are framed and if the matter is set- down for trial, Courts must slow in quashing the criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, or the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7676 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2021 Court’s generally reluctant to interfere with the trial process after charges have been framed, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, the accused disputing the question of fact. This Court cannot delve into disputed question of facts, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the matter is set-down for trial. Hence, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2