- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8168 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GIRIJESH R S/O LATE L RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIDING AT NO.2296, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE MYSORE-570030 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MAMATA GURURAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUJITH NARAYAN S/O K S NARAYAN, AN ADVOCATE AGED 42 YEARS, LIG 255, 25TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN-573201 2. CHITRA PALLAVI W/O GANESHA BIN RAMEGOWDA AGED 32 YEARS, R/O G MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573118 NOW AT THADAGAM ROAD, THADAGAM, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 3. ASHOK D S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST DODDAKONDAGOLA, HASSAN TALUK-573118 4. PRAKASH M H S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED 41 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O G MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.B.S.KAMAKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4 SERVED; V/O DATED: 01.08.2022 NOTICE TO R3 D/W) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2021 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.177,182,195,196,211,511,417,420,466,471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND DIRECTING ISSUE OF SUMMONS BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN C.C.NO.4434/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER In this petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C , petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has sought for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.4434/2021 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 Hassan and set aside the order dated 22.07.2021, taking cognizance for the offences punishable and Sections 177, 182, 195, 196, 211, 511, 470, 420, 466, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court, in PCR No.159/2009. 3. In support of the petition, the accused No.2 has contended that he and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 in PCR.No.159/2009, alleging that while working as Circle Inspector of Police, Hassan City Circle, in Cr.No.63/2010 though the complainant visited the police station on 20.05.2010 and executed bail bond and surety bond, accused No.2 concocted the statement of complainant dated 20.05.2010 and tampered the date as 16.05.2010 and accused No.2 is guilty of falsifying the records and foisting a non existing offence against the complainant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 The private complaint was filed on 08.08.2019. During the course of his evidence the complainant has alleged that FIR No.3/2010 was registered on 20.03.2010 and the statement of the complainant who was accused No.2 therein, was alleged to be recorded on 16.05.2010, which is a created document and therefore, there is a commission of offence by the accused No.2 by falsely implicating the complainant. 3.1 Accused No.2 is not a member of the family of respondent No.1 nor he has recorded statement of complainant on 16.05.2010. The said statement is recorded by the writer attached to the police station where FIR.No.3/2010 was lodged. Sanction is not secured under Section 197 of Cr.P.C or 170 of the Karnataka Police Act ('KP Act' for short) against the accused No.2. The trial Court has taken cognizance of non-existing offence ignoring the statutory fetters set out in Section 197 Cr.P.C and Section 170 of KP Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 3.2 Earlier accused No.2 has filed Crl.P.No.108/2021 against the order taking cognizance, instead of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K.Ayyappa's case, it was withdrawn and this petition is filed and hence, the petition. 4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions: (i) N.Shivakumar Vs. N.Ramanna Adyanthaya (N.Shivakumar)1 (ii) Chamba Bai Vs. Girijapathi (Champa Bai)2 (iii) R.Ningegowda Vs. A.N.Gopal (R.Ningegowda)3 (iv) State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra (Ganesh Chandra)4 (v) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr.(Ravi Shankar Srivastava)5 (vi) Mariswamy IPS (Rtd) Vs. Venkanna Rao (Mariswamy)6 1 1998 Crl.L.J 1172 [Crl.P.2622/1996 Dt.30.07.1997] 2 1999 Crl.L.J 3101 [Crl.RP.101/1998 Dt:22.03.1999] 3 1999 Cr.L.J 884 [Crl.P.1558/1991 Dt.10.08.1999] 4 AIR 2004 SC 2179 [Crl.A.35/1998 Dt.23.03.2004] 5 AIR 2006 SC 2872 6 ILR 2007 KAR 3040 [Crl.P.No.5784/2006 Dt.19.06.2007] - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 (vii) Anil Kumar Vs. M.K.Ayyappa(M.K.Ayyappa)7 (viii) D.T.Virupakshappa Vs. C.Subash (D.T.Virupakshappa)8 (ix) C.T. Ravi Vs. State of Karnataka (C.T.Ravi)9 (x) Indira Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.(Indira Devi)10 (xi) B.G.Prakash Kumar Vs. State by Dy.SP and Ors. (B.G.Prakash Kumar)11 (xii) G.C.Manjunath and Ors. Vs. Seetaram (G.C.Manjunath)12 5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1/complalinant submitted that complainant is an advocate by profession. Accused No.1 Chaitra Pallavi married the brother of complainant by name Swagath. On 19.03.2010, she filed a complaint against complainant and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was investigated by 7 (2013) 10 SCC 705 8 Crl.A.No.722/2015 arising out of SLP (Crl)6684/2013 Dt: 27.04.2015 9 W.P.No.6267/2016 Dt.22.10.2020 10 Crl.A.No.593/2021 arising out of SlP(Crl)1605/2018 Dt:23.07.2021 11 W.P.No.15106/2022 and Connected matters Dt:21.04.2023 12 2025 SAR (Cri) 521: 2025 SAR Online (SC) 374 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 accused No.2. On 20.03.2010, accused No.2 recorded alleged further statement of accused No.1 and based on it included the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 5.1 In Cr.No.3/2010 complainant secured anticipatory bail in Crl.P.1784/2010 and on 20.05.2010, appeared before accused No.2 and executed bail bond. While releasing him on bail, accused No.2 gave an ultimatum that he will not rest till complainant is sent to jail and that he would concoct all necessary documents. Even though complainant did not visit the police station on 16.05.2010, in the charge sheet, accused No.2 has inserted an alleged voluntary statement of complainant and a mahazar dated 16.05.2010 as though he has recovered a Long (¯ÁAUï) at the instance of complainant. He has cited accused Nos.3 and 4 as witnesses to the alleged voluntary statement and mahazar dated 16.05.2010 and executed the bail bonds. After realizing that complainant has visited the police station on 20.05.2010 for securing bail, but the alleged voluntary - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 statement are dated 16.05.2010, in the bail bond as to corroborated the same accordingly, he tampered the date as '16' in the place of '20'. Accused No.2 has done this in order to punish the complainant and his family members for life imprisonment. After coming to know about these, tampering and concoction of documents, complainant filed the private complaint. Based on the documents placed on record, the trial Court has taken cognizance. 5.2 During his sworn statement complainant has deposed to the contents of the complaint and got marked number of documents. Appreciating the same, the trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons. There is prima facie material to proceed against the accused and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. In support of his argument learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has relied upon the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 decision in Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Shadakshari)13. 7. Heard arguments and perused the record. 8. It is an undisputed fact that accused No.2 was the investigating officer in Cr.No.63/2010 of Extension Police station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and ultimately charge sheet came to be filed against the complainant and others in SC.No.19/2012. Making specific allegations that, in the said case the accused No.2 in collusion with the remaining accused concocted and tampered with the documents in order to falsely implicate the complainant, he filed PCR.No.159/2019 and the trial Court has taken cognizance against them. 9. According to the complainant, he secured anticipatory bail dated 13.05.2020 and on 20.05.2020, 13 2024 INSC 42: 2024(1) RCR(Crl)730 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 appeared before accused No.2 at the police station and executed bail bond. However, accused No.2 has concocted a voluntary statement and recovery mahazar dated 16.05.2010 as though the accused No.2 has given the said voluntary statement and on the basis of it, a Long (¯ÁAUï) was recovered. Complainant has alleged that after realising that the said concoction would come to light, tampered with the date on the bail bond of complainant as '16' instead of '20'. However, in the surety bond, the Prisoners search register (PÉÊ¢ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£À jf¸ïÖgï), as well as in the covering letter intimating the employer of complainant, the date of complainant appearing before the investigating officer and executing the bail bond on the basis of anticipatory bail remained 20.05.2010. It is alleged that complainant is an advocate by profession and in order to falsely implicate him, the accused No.2 has not only concocted documents, but also tempered with the records in the file pertaining to Cr.No.63/2010. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 10. From the bail bond, extract of the Prisoners' search register, covering letter addressed to the employer of the complainant, it is evident that after securing anticipatory bail, complainant appeared before the accused No.2 on 20.05.2010 and executed bail bond with the surety and in the back of the bail bond of complainant, the surety bond is also taken. In the Prisoners' search register (PÉÊ¢ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£À jf¸ïÖgï) the fact of complainant having appeared and the details of the articles found on his person are noted. Similarly, the Sub Inspector of the said police station has sent an intimation to the employer of complainant i.e., Divisional Security Inspector, KSRTC Hassan division, that criminal case is registered against complainant and others in Cr.No.63/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act of Extension PS, Hassan and in this regard, complainant has secured anticipatory bail on 13.05.2010 and appeared before the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 police station on 20.05.2010 and after following arrest procedure and taking bail bond he was released. 11. It is pertinent to note that in SC.No.19/2012 on the file of Fast Track Court Hassan, which was a charge sheet filed in Cr.No.63/2010 of Extension PS Hassan, the investigating officer has relied upon an alleged recovery of a Long (¯ÁAUï) on the basis of a alleged voluntary statement of complainant dated 16.05.2010. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are witnesses to the said recovery. It is also relevant to note that very cleverly, the accused No.2 has not taken signature of complainant to the voluntary statement. Of course, taking signature of the accused to the voluntary statement is not mandatory, but this fact assume importance, having regard to the fact that complainant is a Law graduate and at the relevant point of time, he was working as a Assistant Law Officer, in KSRTC. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 12. Probably realising that he may not agree to sign either blank papers or the alleged voluntary statement, accused No.2, who was the investigating officer has not ventured to take his signature. However, after realising that the complainant has not at all visited the police station on 16.05.2010, he has corrected the date in the bail bond of complainant as '16' in the place of '20' and a similar correction is made out at two places in the prisoners search register. However, in the surety bond, which is on the back portion of bail bond of the complainant as well as in other three places of the prisoners search register, the date has remained 20.05.2010. 13. Similarly, in the covering letter sent to the Employer of complainant also, the date of complainant securing bail remained noted as 20.05.2010. When the complainant was not in custody on 16.05.2010 and had appeared before the investigating officer only on 20.05.2010, it clearly goes to show that the voluntary - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 statement and recovery mahazar dated 16.05.2010 are concocted for the purpose of Falsely implicating him and accused No.2 in his capacity as investigating officer has tampered with the records. 14. In the light of the same, the trial Court is justified in taking cognizance and proceeding against all the accused persons, including the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2. The contention of accused No.2 that the correction of date in the bail bond and two places of prisoners search register is made by the writer and he is not responsible for the same cannot be accepted as he is the investigating officer. In fact, the alleged voluntary statement of complainant and recovery mahazar dated 16.05.2010 is concocted by him. If at all the writer has corrected the dates in the bail bond and two places of prisoners search register, it is done in consonance with the alleged voluntary statement and recovery mahazar concocted by accused No.2. Therefore, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 it is not open for him to claim that the said corrections are not made by him. 15. So far as the defence of the petitioner that sanction order is not taken to prosecute him and as such the complaint is not maintainable. The discussion made above clearly indicate that petitioner while investigating the case against the complainant and others has not only concocted documents, but also tampered with the records and used them as genuine. At any stretch of imagination, this act of petitioner cannot be termed as part of his job so as to require sanction. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand. 16. In the result, petition fails and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24018 CRL.P No. 8168 of 2021 (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49