- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11049 CRL.P No. 102759 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102759 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: LINGAPPA S/O. SHIVAJOGEPPA HUTAGONNAVAR, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED J.E. HDMC, R/O. #53, 1ST CROSS, SHARADA COLONY, DIST. DHARWAD-580 004. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN P.S., R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. SRIKANTH S/O. GOVINDARAO LOKHANDE, AGE. 77 YEAS, OCC. RETIRED (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN HDMC), R/O. HOUSE NO.15, ARAKAVATHI LAYOUT, MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST, DIST. BENGALURU-560 003. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409, 419, 468, 201, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC IN HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN P.S. CRIME NO.280/2000 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.226/2012 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11049 CRL.P No. 102759 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused No.4 is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2012 pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi arising out of Crime No.280 of 2000 registered by Hubballi Sub-urban Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 468, 201 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.1 and the petitioner herein were working as engineers in Municipal Corporation, Dharwad. Petitioner has now retired from service. The allegation against the petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 3 is that they were responsible to enable the contractor to encash fraudulent bills. Based on the complaint of the Executive Engineer of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11049 CRL.P No. 102759 of 2025 the Municipal Corporation, FIR was registered in Crime No.280 of 2000 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against 8 accused. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were the engineers working in the Corporation and accused Nos.5 to 7 were officers in the accounts department. Accused No.8 was the contractor who allegedly had encashed fraudulent bills with the help of other accused persons. He submits that proceedings as against accused No.1 has been quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2009 disposed off on 30.09.2011 taking into consideration that the report of the handwriting expert would go to show that accused No.1 was not involved in the alleged fraud. He submits that even in respect of the petitioner, the report of the handwriting expert is similar. In addition to the same, petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11049 CRL.P No. 102759 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned HCGP does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She also does not dispute that the report of the handwriting expert insofar as the accused No.1 and the petitioner is similar. 5. This Court while allowing Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2009, vide order dated 30.09.2011 which was filed by accused No.1, in Paragraph No.6 has observed as follows: “6. Given the above facts and circumstances, the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner should unnecessarily await the out come of the trial notwithstanding the handwriting expert’s opinion which is clearly in his favour and the fact that the petitioner had retired from service even before the alleged bills were executed would demonstrate that the petitioner was not involved in the transaction and the further report of the handwriting expert to the effect that the signatures purportedly being that of the petitioner were indeed forged and not in the hand of the petitioner would be a circumstance which would support the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner being named as accused when the prosecution did not feel that no case was made out against him in respect of another set of bills challenged under similar circumstances in inexplicable.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11049 CRL.P No. 102759 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the order passed by the enquiry officer dated 01.07.2010, in the disciplinary proceedings held against him and perusal of the same would go to show that as many as 7 charges were framed against the petitioner and finding is recorded that prosecution has failed to prove all the 7 charges levelled against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioner who is now said to have been retired, would not only amount to abuse of process of law, but the same would also be a futile exercise in view of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2009 quashing the impugned proceedings as against accused No.1, who was facing similar charges in the impugned criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the following: ORDER a. Criminal petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11049 CRL.P No. 102759 of 2025 b. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2012 pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi arising out of Crime No.280 of 2000 registered by Hubballi Sub-urban Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 468, 201 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed as against the petitioner is concerned. c. Pending I.As. stand disposed off. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19