- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2514 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102764 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRAKASH BORA S/O. SHIVASINGAM BORA AGE.29 YEARS, OCC. FIELD OFFICER AT ANDRA BANK, KARATAGI BRANCH, GANGAVATHI TALUKA, NOW R/O. BHOGARTOLA VILLAGE, GARUR TEHSIL, BAGESHWAR, UTTARKHAND STATE-263642. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI GANGAVATI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580004. 2. SHYAMANNA S/O. SANNALACHAMAPPA NAYAK AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ICANAL VILLAGE, KARADONI POST, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT AND FIR VIDE ANNEXURES A AND B RESPCTIVELY, IN KARATAGI P.S. CRIME NO.170/2018, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GANGAVATI, IN CC NO.885/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 471, 419, 420, 406, 409 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2514 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No.6, who has been charge- sheeted for the offenses punishable under Sections 120B, 471, 419, 420, 406, and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos.1 to 6, in connivance with each other, fraudulently obtained a crop loan in favor of accused No.1, despite knowing that the actual owner of the land bearing Sy.No.10 of Goravi Hanchinal village, Kanakagiri Taluk, Koppal District, measuring 17 acres 14 guntas, had passed away. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that accused No.6, at the relevant time, was working as a Field Officer at Andhra Bank and his role was limited to collecting and submitting documents to the Manager. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither responsible for verifying the genuineness of the documents nor the identity of the applicant seeking the crop loan. In the absence of any specific overt act indicating that accused No.6 conspired with the other accused to sanction the loan fraudulently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State contends that the charge-sheet materials establish that accused No.6, in collusion with the other accused, facilitated the fraudulent sanction of the crop loan in favor - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2514 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2022 of accused No.1. It is further argued that the veracity of these allegations must be examined at the stage of trial and cannot be adjudicated in this petition. Thus, the learned Additional Government Advocate prays for the dismissal of the petition. 5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties, the following observations are made: a) The prosecution alleges that the subject land belonged to the father of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who passed away in the year 1992. b) Accused No.1, whose name was similar to that of the deceased father of respondent No.2, submitted an application to the bank for a crop loan, mortgaging the property belonging to the deceased father of respondent No.2. c) Accused No.6, who was working as a Field Officer at the relevant time, was responsible only for forwarding the documents to the Manager and had no duty to verify the authenticity of the documents or the identity of the applicant. d) The loan was sanctioned in favor of accused No.1, who allegedly impersonated the deceased father of respondent No.2. e) There is no direct or indirect evidence to establish that accused No.6 acted in furtherance of a common intention to fraudulently obtain the loan by impersonation. 6. In the absence of any specific overt act or any material evidence implicating accused No.6, prosecuting him merely - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2514 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2022 because he was working as a Field Officer at the relevant time would be an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.885/2020, pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, insofar as they pertain to petitioner/accused No.6, are hereby quashed. 8. The trial court is directed to proceed against the remaining accused in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudicating this petition and shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. 9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97