- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102298 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESH S/O. KERABA KURANI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: IN-FRONT OF BAGEWADI COLLEGE, NEAR CHURCH, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. SUNIL S/O. VILAS JAYAKAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. IN-FRONT OF BAGEWADI COLLEGE, NEAR CHURCH, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. RUBEN S/O. SAMUEL SAKAT AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: IN-FRONT OF BAGEWADI COLLEGE, NEAR CHURCH, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. DAVID S/O. KONDIBA TIVADE, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. BEHIND KLE SCHOOL, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. ARUNA W/O. NANASAHEB PATIL AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BEHIND KLE SCHOOL, NIPPANI-591237 RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SRI. SAMEER S/O. ANNASAHEB PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BEHIND KLE SCHOOL, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. ASHA W/O. DAVID TIVADE AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BEHIND KLE SCHOOL, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SRI. VISHANT S/O. SHARAD LATKAR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: BEHIND KLE SCHOOL, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 9. SRI. SUNIL S/O. SHAMRAO OAK, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: RIKSHAW DRIVER, R/O. BEHIND KLE SCHOOL, NIPPANI-591237 TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAGOUDA A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH P.S.I., NIPANI TOWN POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. ABHISHEKH S/O. NAYAN SHAH AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR OF SHAH AV NIPPANI INFRA PVT. LTD., R/O. 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE NO.202, 725/26, PRIYADARSHINI APARTMENT, GANESH ROAD, BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE-411002, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 9 AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.3012/2023 ARISING OUT OF NIPPANI TOWN POLICE STATION CRI.NO. 99/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 447, 427, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NIPANI. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. The accused in C.C. No.3012/2023, pending before the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nippani, arising out of Crime No.99/2023 registered by Nippani Town Police Station, Nippani Circle, Belagavi District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, are before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case, as against them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties and, it is in this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 background, a false complaint has been filed against the petitioners. He submits that O.S. No.22/2023, in respect of the land in dispute, is pending before the jurisdictional Civil Court, and the first informant in the present case is defendant No.2 in the said case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP has opposed the petition. 5. Perusal of the averments found in the first information would go to show that the allegation against the petitioners is that they had entered into a vacant site in Sy.No.131/B, situated at Old PB Road, Besides KLE English Medium School, Opp: Nippani Court Complex, Nippani, and after abusing and criminally intimidating the Contractor, who was asked by the first informant to put a compound wall to the aforesaid property had allegedly cut and removed the standing trees in the said property. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The alleged offences are cognizable in nature, and merely for the reason that there is some civil dispute pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if the material on record prima facie demonstrates that the accused persons had indulged in criminal acts, which would prima facie attract the alleged offences. 6. In the case on hand, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the neighbors in addition to the statement of the first informant, and the statements of the other witnesses corroborate with the allegations made by the first informant against the accused persons. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMALADEVI AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF W.B AND OTHERS1, in para 17 held as follows: “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 1 (2002) 1 SCC 555 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KATHYAYINI Vs. SIDHARTH P.S REDDY AND ORS2, after referring to the case of KAMALADEVI AGARWAL (supra) 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….” 9. From the aforesaid it is very clear that merely for the reason that some civil dispute is pending, the criminal proceedings initiated by one of the parties to the civil dispute cannot be quashed if the material on record would prima facie go to show that alleged act was committed by the accused. 2 (2025) INSC 818 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9990 CRL.P No. 102298 of 2024 10. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the following. ORDER: The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT: ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40