- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103159 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. JAYAVITHAL CHANDRAKANT KUBAL S/O CHANDRAKANT KUBAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. #3/516 CHANDRAKANT, ALVEDANDE KUMTA, UTTAR KANNADA-581 343. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINANDAN V. HIREMATH AND SRI. NAZEEFA A. MULLA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS ANKOLA POLICE STATION, KARWAR, REP/BY H.C.G.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580 022. 2. MRS. SAVITA PANDARINATH KURLE @ SAVITA GANAPATI W/O PANDARINATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O AT: GABIT KENI, ANKOLA, UTTAR KANNADA-581 314. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.0108/202 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ANKOLA POLICE STATION AS PER THE ANNEXURE-A FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 189(2), 190, 329(3), 74 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/A2 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused No.2 in Crime No.108/2025 registered by Ankola Police Station, Uttara Kannada District for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 190, 329(3), 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is before this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties and therefore, a false complaint has been filed against the accused. He submits that petitioner is a government servant and he was not at all present at the spot of crime. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that investigation of the case is under progress and merely for the reason that there are civil dispute, when the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 5. In the first information which is received from Savita Pandarinath Kurle, she has stated that there is a civil dispute between the parties and on 30.06.2025 at about 05:30 p.m., about 15 to 20 persons forcibly entered into the land in dispute and therefore, the survey officers who were present in the land in dispute had stopped their work and returned back. It is alleged that the petitioner abused the first informant using filthy language and he also pulled her nighty and tore the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons criminally intimidated the first informant and her family members before leaving the spot. FIR in the present case has been registered for cognizable offences. 6. Police have got a right to investigate when an FIR has been registered for cognizable offences. Investigation in a case registered for cognizable of offences cannot be scuttled by this Court unless exceptional circumstances are made out. Law in this regard has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. State - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 of Maharashtra and others1, at paragraph 57, has observed as under: "57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); 1 2021 SCC OnLine 315 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. 7. In the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 41 & 42, has observed as under: "41. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a 2 (2021) 5 SCC 795 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. 42. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta, this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere." 8. In the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal and others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely for the reason that a criminal proceeding is pending between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings if it is found that prima facie case exists against the accused. Referring to the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.17 has observed as follows: 3 (2002) 1 SCC 555 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 “17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Kamaladevi (Supra) in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & others4, in para no. 23 has observed as follows; “23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.” 10. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case wherein this Court is requires to exercises its 4 2025 INSC 818 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10195 CRL.P No. 103159 of 2025 powers under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the final report if the same is adverse to his interest. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE Rsh / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47