- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101866 OF 2021 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., R/BY.PETITIONER NO.2 NEAR CHAWADI, AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SRI. SHRIDHAR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPUJI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN NO.1 SOCIETY DEVARAJ NAGAR, AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 3. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA HADPAD, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE NO.1 SOCIETY, AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 4. SRI. ANAND S/O. SHANKRAPA UPPIN, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN NO.1 SOCIETY AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 5. SRI. VENKATESH S/O. VITTHAL PUJARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, POST: TERDAL TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 6. SRI. MOHAN S/O. VITTHAL PATTAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 7. SRI. PARAPPA S/O. MAHALINGAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 8. SRI. BASANGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA KALBURGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021 POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 9. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. PARAPPA KALLOLLI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 10. SRI. GANAPATI S/O. LAXMAN GADIWADDAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 11. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. MAHALINGAPPA KUMBHAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, PERMANENT R/O. AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT SHIVAMRESI, F-NO201, SEC.13, SPINE RIADM CHIKHALI, OPP JAGUAR LANDROVER COMPANY, PUNE - 411 019. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NAGARATNA S. PATTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. NEMANNA HATTI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. NEAR MINORITY BANK, YALLAMMANA TEMPLE, TAL. JHAMKHANDI AND DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE, R/B. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R2; SHRI VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADV. FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C, SEEKING TO BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/NO.1 TO 11/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 AND 11, 12 AND 14 MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED IN C.C. NO.(645/2018) RENUMBERED AS 91/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.403, 409, 417, 418, 420, 426, 464, 465, 468, 477- A R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.645 of 2018 (renumbered as 91 of 2020) arising out of P. C. No.115 of 2017 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Banahatti, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 417, 418, 420, 426, 464, 465, 468 and 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that respondent No.1/complainant filed a private complaint in P.C. No.115 of 2017 against the petitioners alleging that he borrowed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from petitioner No.1 Society on 03.09.2007 and returned the entire amount on 19.02.2009 along with the interest. However, the Society has created false loan documents as if the complainant raised a loan from Society on 21.12.2009 and the Society is unnecessarily harassing the complainant by misusing the documents submitted by the complainant on previous loan transactions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021 Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint. Soon after initiation of the private complaint, the learned Magistrate instead of referring the matter to the jurisdictional Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he chooses to inquire into the matter himself. Hence, taking exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no case against the petitioners and they are not involved in the alleged offences. Further, the complainant has not disputed the loan borrowed by him from the Society, Execution Petition filed against him for recovery of loan amount and the arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator. Now, in order to harass the petitioners, the complainant has filed a false complaint. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash the entire proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have contented that the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners and the matter is set down for evidence. Now, the petitioners are disputing the question of fact and the same cannot be gone into by this Court in petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, they pray to dismiss the petition. 6. Perused the entire material on record. As per the complaint, the complainant made allegations against all the petitioners alleging that they created false loan documents as if the complainant borrowed loan from the Society and hence, false Execution Petition also filed against the complainant for recovery of loan amount. In this case, the alleged offences are cognizable in nature. Now, the petitioners are disputing the question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, only prima-facie case has to be seen and similar ratio is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MINAKSHI BALA v. SUDHIR KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 4 SCC 142 has held that 'if charges are framed under Section 240 or 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, based on a prima-facie case, the High Courts must exercise caution and restraint when considering a plea to quash the proceedings against the accused'. In the instant case, the cognizable offences are made out. Hence, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12