- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2704 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 102442 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102765 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102442 OF 2021 IN CRL.P. NO.102765 OF 2022: BETWEEN: 1. BHARATI D/O. BASAPPA BHAVIKATTI (AFTER MARRIAGE BHARATI W/O. AMAR HOSAMANI), AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MELLIKERI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. BASAPPA S/O. PANDAPPA BHAVIKATTI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MELLIKERI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. LAXMAN S/O. YAMANAPPA ALATANUR AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HONAKUPPI, TQ. GOKAK, NOW AT MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: BHIMAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA HOSAMANI B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.15 12:54:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2704 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 102442 of 2021 AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TOTARATTI, TALUK. GOKAK-590002. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT –SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2021 RENDERED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI IN P.C. NO.66/2020 (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.547/2021) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 120B AND 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER’S WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4, AND CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF CC NO.547/2021 AND PC NO.66/2019. IN CRL.P. NO.102442 OF 2021: BETWEEN: SHRI. PRAKASH SOMALINGAPPA ANCHI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. BUDIGOPPA, TAL. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: BHIMAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA HOSAMANI AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TOKARATTI, TALUK. GOKAK-590002, NOW-MUDALAGI, DIST-BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH V.BADIGER AND SRI. A.VEERANNA, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAUNDATTI IN P.C. NO.66 OF 2019 (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.547/2021) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 120B, AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2704 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 102442 of 2021 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 547/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, arising out of the cognizance taken for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging that his second son, Amar, was married to petitioner No.1 in the year 2010, and from the said wedlock, they had a male child. The deceased was employed as a JCB driver under accused No.1, who was a contractor, and was earning a salary of ₹9,000/- per month. 3. It was alleged that accused No.1 had an illicit relationship with petitioner No.1. When the deceased became aware of this, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 conspired and murdered him, subsequently disposing of the dead body in a ditch beside Yaragatti-Belagavi road. 4. The learned Magistrate, upon recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the petitioners. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2704 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 102442 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that: • The death of Amar was due to accidental injuries sustained on 30.04.2018, and an FIR was initially registered against an unknown vehicle. After a thorough police investigation, a ‘C’ report was submitted on 10.01.2019, as the vehicle involved in the accident could not be traced. • Thereafter, petitioner No.1 initiated legal proceedings for partition of the joint family properties. To circumvent her legitimate claim, the respondent filed a false private complaint after a considerable delay, nearly one year after the death of the deceased. • The learned Magistrate took cognizance without substantial evidence and in the absence of any direct or circumstantial proof against the petitioners, rendering the proceedings an abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the allegations in the complaint and sworn statement disclose prima facie commission of the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate, after due consideration, rightly took cognizance, and the veracity of allegations must be tested at trial, rather than at this stage. 7. The petitioners have placed on record the post-mortem report of the deceased, wherein the cause of death was stated as poly-trauma due to blunt force impact. The report was not considered by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2704 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 102442 of 2021 8. The deceased passed away on 01.05.2018, and after a detailed police investigation, a ‘C’ report was filed on 10.01.2019, concluding that the case was an accident, with the vehicle remaining untraceable. Despite this, the respondent did not file a protest petition against the ‘C’ report at the relevant time. 9. The private complaint was belatedly filed on 02.05.2019, nearly a year after the incident, raising doubts about the motive behind the allegations. The timing of the complaint coincides with petitioner No.1’s claim for partition, further suggesting malicious intent to deprive her of her legal rights. 10. A perusal of the complaint and sworn statement reveals that: • There is no direct eyewitness testimony to support the allegations of murder and conspiracy. • The entire case rests on assumptions and conjectures. • The learned Magistrate took cognizance based solely on oral allegations, without any corroborative material. 11. The impugned order of cognizance merely records that the complainant has deposed about the occurrence and that allegations suggest the commission of murder. However, the learned Magistrate has failed to record reasons to indicate how the allegations on oath prima facie establish the offences alleged. 12. The absence of recorded reasons while issuing process is in contravention of Section 204 Cr.P.C., which mandates - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2704 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 102442 of 2021 that a Magistrate must be satisfied that sufficient grounds exist before issuing process. In the absence of such satisfaction, the cognizance order is legally unsustainable. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749], held that: • Taking cognizance of an offence is a serious matter, and before issuing process, the Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the material on record. • Mere allegations in a complaint, without prima facie material, cannot justify the continuation of criminal proceedings. • The learned Magistrate failed to record reasons for taking cognizance, thereby violating procedural safeguards. • The absence of direct evidence and the delay in filing the complaint strongly indicate abuse of the process of law. 14. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are allowed. The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 547/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, are hereby quashed. 15. Any pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71