- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:343 CRL.P No. 103852 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103852 OF 2023 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI ASHVIN WASNIK S/O. SUDHAKAR WASNIK AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BRANCH MANAGER, KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK MORAB BRANCH, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMATHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR NAVALAGUND POLICE STATION NAVALAGUND TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SRI. SHANMUKAPPA MAHADEVAPPA JAVUR AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUMMAGOL, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED TO R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN CRIME NO 171/2023 (ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAVALGUND POLICE STATION TQ NAVALGUND DIST. DHRWAD) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAVALGUND FOR THE OFFENCES Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:343 CRL.P No. 103852 of 2023 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, 506 AND 420 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Hanumathareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1- State. 2. Respondent No.2 served with notice and remained absent. 3. Complainant is the son of Mahadevappa Javur. He had borrowed agriculture loan from KVG Bank in respect of by pledging his agricultural property situated in Gummagol village to the extent of 19 acres. Admittedly, loan became sticky and therefore, actions were initiated. There is a move for settlement. The present petitioner said to have told that, if they pay Rs.17,00,000/-, matter can be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:343 CRL.P No. 103852 of 2023 settled as a one time settlement. But the complainant and his father went to KVG Bank at Dharwad and enquired, wherein, they have been told that they have to pay Rs.45,00,000/- for settlement. 4. In that regard, there were some differences between the petitioner and the deceased Mahadevappa Javur. When the matter stood thus, on 07.10.2023, petitioner said to visit the Gummagol and enquired with the father of the complainant and took the signature on a withdrawal slip and stealthily withdrew sum of Rs.1,40,000/- standing in the account of the father of the complainant. On seeing the message in the mobile telephone, the father of the complainant enquired the petitioner wherein, the petitioner has abused the father of the complainant in a filthy language and also threatened him to clear the balance dues otherwise his land will be put to auction. 5. On hearing such an answer from the petitioner herein, the father of the complainant fell down and he lost - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:343 CRL.P No. 103852 of 2023 his conscious and he was shifted to Government Hospital at the first instance and then shifted to Sanjeevani Hospital, Hubballi. Later on, the father of the complainant died and the case is now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. Complainant has now sought for action about the stealthily recovering a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the account of the father of the complainant and also abusing the complainant and threatening him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that demanding the loan amount would not per se amounts to threatening and therefore, very registration of the FIR is incorrect and abuse of process of law. Hence, sought for quashing the proceedings. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that it is not a mere demand. The matter needs to be investigated and sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:343 CRL.P No. 103852 of 2023 10. On such perusal of the material on record, no case is made out for quashing the FIR in view of prima facie allegations leveled against the petitioner herein. 11. Whether at all, the petitioner has stealthily withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- or not based on the withdrawal slip, is a question that needs to be investigated by the police after thorough investigation. 12. Further, whether there was only a demand of the loan amount or was there any threat, is also a matter that needs to be investigated by the police. 13. Therefore, grounds urged in the petition are not sufficient enough to quash the pending FIR. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. (ii) However, in the event that an adverse report detrimental to the interest of the petitioner is submitted after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:343 CRL.P No. 103852 of 2023 investigation, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 15