- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1244 CRL.P No. 200340 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200340 OF 2025 BETWEEN: VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O CHANDRASHEKAR NILGAL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SIRWAR, TQ.SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH, SHAHAPUR PS, SHAHAPUR, BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585107. 2. SRI BHARAT KUMAR S/O LATE BASAVARAJ NILGAL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SIRWAR, TQ.SIRWAR, DIST.RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 1887/2022 (CR. NO. 66/2021) FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 420 AND 464 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHAHAPUR Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1244 CRL.P No. 200340 of 2025 AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1887/2022 pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahapur, arising out of Crime No.66/2021 registered by Shahapur Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 464 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent no.1. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a civil dispute with regard to the property in question which is pending in O.S.No.212/2023. In respect of the incident that had taken place subsequent to the registration of FIR in the present case, FIR was registered against the first informant and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1244 CRL.P No. 200340 of 2025 his family members and the said proceedings are questioned before this Court in Crl.P.No.201080/2024 and Crl.P.No.200353/2025. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that the allegation in the present case is about creating a fraudulent document, based on which the revenue records of the land in question was changed in the name of the petitioner. The said document has been traced in the office of the local municipality, based on which the revenue records of the land were changed in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner for the alleged offences. The proceedings in Crl.P.No.201080/2024 and Crl.P.No.200353/2025 has nothing to do with the present criminal case. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the first informant in the present case, who is respondent no.2 herein, is the son of petitioner’s younger deceased Basavaraj. Petitioner’s younger brother – Basavaraj appears to have died on 01.04.2006 leaving behind his wife and son who is respondent no.2 herein. The allegation against - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1244 CRL.P No. 200340 of 2025 the petitioner is that after the death of his brother – Basavaraj, he had submitted an affidavit in the office of the local municipality stating that his brother – Basavaraj was a bachelor and had died intestate and based on such an affidavit, the revenue records of the land in question were transferred in the name of the petitioner. 6. The police after investigation of the complaint which was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC by the jurisdictional Magistrate, have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offences. Perusal of the charge sheet material would go to show that during the course of investigation, the alleged affidavit which was submitted by the petitioner before the municipality stating that his brother – Basavaraj was a bachelor and had died intestate has been traced. It is the specific case of the complainant/respondent no.2 that such an affidavit filed by the petitioner was with an intention to cheat the wife and son of deceased Basavaraj. 7. Considering the material on record, more so the allegations found in the charge sheet, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no material to prosecute the petitioner for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1244 CRL.P No. 200340 of 2025 the alleged offences. The question whether the petitioner is a signatory to the affidavit or not, is a subject which is required to be thrashed out in trial by the jurisdictional court. 8. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, the impugned criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the proceedings which are the subject matter of Crl.P.No.201080/2024 and Crl.P.No.200353/2025. Merely for the reason that there is a civil dispute between the parties, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, when the material on record would go to show that there are prima facie material to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9. All contentions urged are kept open. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK