- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3258 CRL.P No. 101715 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101715 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHALANADEVI ANNAPPA HERALE AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. PRADHAN GURUMATE (RETD), HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BASTWAD, R/O. BASTWAD (HALAGA), TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 2. SMT. SHEELAVATI BASANAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER ASST. TEACHER HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BASTWAD, R/O. BASTWAD (HALAGA), TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 3. SMT. GEETA RUDRAPPA BHASKAR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER ASST. TEACHER HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BASTWAD, R/O. BASTWAD (HALAGA), TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 4. SHRI. RAJASHEKAR M PATIL AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER ASST. TEACHER, HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, SHEGANMATTI, R/O. SHEGANMATTI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590020. 5. SHRI. M S ATHANI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. PRACHAN GURU PREVIOUSLY SERVING IN BASWAD VILLAGE SCHOOL, R/O. BASTWAD (HALAGA), TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3258 CRL.P No. 101715 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, HIREBAGEWADI POLICE STATION, REPD BY ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. SRI. NAGAPPA MADDEPPA SOGALAD AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. BHARAT NAGAR (P), SHAHAPUR BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED IN HIREBAGEWADI PS CRIME NO.54/2011 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 465, 468 AND 471 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 TO 7 ARE CONCERNED ADD QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.57/2020, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 465, 468 AND 471 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BELAGAVI, IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 TO 7 ARE CONCERNED AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2023 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BELAGAVI IN CC NO.57/2020. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3258 CRL.P No. 101715 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is impugned in this petition. 2. The second respondent lodged a First Information Report (FIR), stating that his wife had been working as a teacher at Government Boys Kannada Medium School, Bastwad, for 20 years without any allegations or complaints from the villagers, colleagues, Headmaster, or higher authorities. On 04.12.2010, a group of individuals, claiming to be villagers from Bastwad, wrote a letter to the Block Education Officer (BEO), who, without conducting any inquiry, transferred the wife of the complainant. The transfer order created an impression among the villagers that the complainant’s wife was involved in wrongdoing. 3. After investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ Report, stating that the authors of the letter addressed to the BEO had confirmed their signatures. The complainant filed a protest petition, and the learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement, rejected the ‘B’ Report and took cognizance of the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that there is no substantial evidence to show that the petitioners were signatories to the communication sent to the BEO. In the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3258 CRL.P No. 101715 of 2023 absence of such evidence, the taking of cognizance for the aforementioned offences is impermissible. 5. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners were colleagues of the complainant’s wife at the Government High School, and she had objected to the withdrawal of funds by the petitioners. As a result, the petitioners allegedly forged the signatures of the villagers and submitted a representation to the BEO. Therefore, the veracity of these allegations can only be determined during trial, not at this stage, and the petition should be dismissed. He further contended that the documents produced as Exs.P.29 to 42 clearly show that the petitioners had forged the signatures of the villagers on the communication addressed to the BEO. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State reiterated the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. The arguments of the learned counsels have been duly considered. 8. The police, after recording statements from 54 villagers, submitted a ‘B’ Report, stating that there was no forgery of signatures on the communication sent to the BEO. The complainant, however, has not examined any of the individuals whose signatures appear on the communication to substantiate the allegation of forgery. The complainant has produced postal acknowledgments to substantiate that the signatures on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3258 CRL.P No. 101715 of 2023 communication and the signatures of the villagers are noticeably different. However, the villagers have not complained against the petitioners for the alleged forgery of their signatures, nor they have been examined on oath before the Trial Court. In the absence of any substantial evidence, the complainant’s allegation that the petitioners forged the signatures remains unproven. Apart from the self-serving statement of the complainant, there is no corroborative evidence to support the allegation against the petitioners. Criminal proceedings cannot continue based solely on the complainant’s uncorroborated statement. 9. The complainant filed a protest petition against the ‘B’ Report submitted by the police. The learned Magistrate was required to first reject the ‘B’ Report and then record the sworn statement before issuing summons, as per the guidelines in Dr. Ravikumar v. K.M.C. Vasantha (ILR 2018 KAR 1725). In this case, the learned Magistrate, without first rejecting the ‘B’ Report, recorded the sworn statement and issued summons, which is contrary to the prescribed procedure. 10. Given these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.57/2020 pending on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3258 CRL.P No. 101715 of 2023 and JMFC, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 7, is hereby quashed. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 167