- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:336 CRL.P No. 103789 of 2024 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. 103789 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAJARAM @ RAJU S/O. VISHNU DEVAGIRI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O. OPPOSITE SAINIK SCHOOL, VIJAYAPUR, TQ AND DIST.VIJAYAPUR. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIDYAGIRI P.S. DHARWAR, SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011. 2. VISHNU S/O. RAJARAM DEVAGIRI AGE.85 YEARS, OCC.RETIRED, R/O. OPPOSITE SAINIK SCHOOL, VIJAYAPUR, TQ AND DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586101. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)] THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN VIDYAGIRI P.S. CRIME NO.206/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:336 CRL.P No. 103789 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. S. B. Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. Lingesh V. Kattemane, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, with the following prayer: <Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon9ble Court be pleased to allow the above criminal petition by quashing the entire proceedings in Vidyagiri PS Crime No.206/2024 registered by the respondent No.1 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC, insofar as the petitioner is concerned and grant any other relief in the interest of justice and equity.= 1 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:336 CRL.P No. 103789 of 2024 3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be filed by the respondent No.2 before Vidyagiri Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad, alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. As per the complaint averments, the father of the complainant is said to have executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and using the said power of attorney, the petitioner is said to have drawn compensation amount from KIADB to the tune of Rs.1,37,75,000/-. 3.2. It is further contented that the father of the complainant has not executed any power of attorney and the same is concocted by the petitioner herein. 4. The police after registering the case in Crime No.206/2024, investigated the matter. 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of the same transaction, the petitioner herein has filed a 2 For short, ‘IPC’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:336 CRL.P No. 103789 of 2024 private complaint before the Court at Vijayapura. In the said proceedings, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the sworn statement and took cognizance of the matter. The same is now pending in C.C. No.323/2025 and therefore, present complaint needs to be quashed. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would submit that quashing of the FIR is impermissible and if the transaction involved in the private complaint is the subject matter of the case pending before the Court at Vijayapura is one and the same, the Investigating Officer would file appropriate report in accordance with law under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:336 CRL.P No. 103789 of 2024 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not clear that what are the allegations found in the private complaint, what has been placed before the Court is the order sheet in C.C. No.323/2025, what are the averments in the present complaint and what are the transactions involved. 10. Whether the present complaint averments and the averments in the private complaint pending before the Court at Vijayapura, are one and the same, is a matter that has to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner can furnish the necessary documents before the Investigating Officer and if it is found that the averments in the private complaint which is taken cognizance by the jurisdictional Magistrate and the averments in the present complaint are one and the same in respect of the same transactions, the petitioner cannot be held liable for double jeopardy. Taking note of the said aspect of the matter, appropriate report would be filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:336 CRL.P No. 103789 of 2024 11. If any failure is there on the part of the Investigating Officer which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner herein on the ground of double jeopardy, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the charge sheet, if filed, on the ground of double jeopardy. 12. Accordingly, with that liberty reserved for the petitioner, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10