- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102115 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. TIKKE NAYAK S/O. SHIVAPPA RUDRAMANI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNIKER TANDA VILLAGE-583231, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, AND SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SRI. MARUTI GULLARI, P.I., AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: POLICE OFFICER, R/O. P. I. KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, KOPPAL CITY-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KOPPAL IN C.C. NO.36/2021 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.420, 511, 120B OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF SPECIFIED BANK NOTES (CESSATION OF LIABILITIES) ACT, 2017 IN CRIME NO.133/2020 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION, 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:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Shri Hanumesh M.Desai., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Malipatil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. 2. The petitioner – accused No.4 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., [Section 528 of BNSS, 2023], with the following prayer: “Wherefore, petitioner/accused no-4 most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Order dated: 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM - Koppal in C.C.No.36/2021 thereby taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 420, 511, 120B, of IPC and Section 7 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 in Crime No.133/2020 as against the petitioner/accused No.4 and allow the above Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant received credible information that certain individuals were in possession of demonetized currency - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024 notes, which had been invalidated by the Government’s notification dated 08.11.2016. Upon conducting a search, it was discovered that accused Nos.1 to 6 were in possession of demonetized currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and the accused claimed the value of the notes would double if the notes were worshipped. 4. It is undisputed fact that demonetized currency notes were allegedly recovered from accused Nos.1 to 6, and accused No.7 fled the scene during the search. 5. To constitute an offense punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, it must be shown that a person induced another to part with property with an intention to cheat at the inception. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner induced anyone to part with property or currency notes with an intention to cheat. In the absence of the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, the cognizance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024 taken by the learned Magistrate for the said offence lacks merit. 6. Contravention of Section 5 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, is punishable with a fine and is classified as a non-cognizable offense. Under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), police officers are required to obtain permission from the Magistrate before initiating an investigation into non-cognizable offenses. However, in the present case, the police conducted an investigation without obtaining the mandatory permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, rendering the investigation invalid. 7. In light of the above, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The co-ordinate bench of this Court has already stayed the entire proceedings insofar as accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.103744/2024. Hence, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024 the case against accused No.4 is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.36/2021 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.4. iii) The pending I.A’s, if any, is disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/- CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18