- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103661 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101175 OF 2025 IN CRL.P NO. 103661/2025 BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O BEERAPPA MUDHOL AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MIRJI TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT 587313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI, LOKAPUR, POLICE STATION, TQ MUDHOL DIST BAGALKOT 587313. 2. SHIVAYYA S/O BASAYYA SWAMI AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. FACTORY WORKER, R/O KEMBHAVI NOW AT MUDDAPUR J.K. CEMENT FACTORY PADMANAGAR, TQ MUDHOL DIST BAGALKOT 587313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KARTHEEK S. SHIDDAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 1895/2021 ON FILE OF THE PRINCIPIAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. MUDHOL AGAINST THE PETITIONER ACCUSED (ACCUSED NO.1) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.12 16:10:51 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 SECTION 419, 384 AND 511 R/W 34 OF THE IPC ARISING OUT CRIME NO. 0037/2021 REGERED BY THE LOKAPUR POLICE STATION INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1. IN CRL.P NO. 101175/2025 BETWEEN: SRI YALLAPPA S/O NINGAPPA HEGAYAR URF HEGADE AGE 28 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. METAGUD VILLAGE IN MUDHOLA TALUKA, DIST BAGALKOT 587813. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAPUR P.S R/BY LEARNED HCGP HIGH COURT KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH. 2. SHIVAYYA S/O BASAYYA SWAMI AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. FACTORY WORKER R/O. MUDDAPUR J K CEMENT FACTORY PADAM NAGAR IN MUDHOL TALUKA BAGALKOT 587813. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER AND QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1895/2021 AGAINST PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 419, 384, 511, 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MUDHOL, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.37/2021 LOKAPUR P.S. AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 INITIATED PURSUANT THERETO. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Girish A. Yadawad and Sri.Sourabh Hegde, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Kartheek S. Shiddapur and Sri.K.S.Patil, learned Advocates for respondent No.2. 2. These two petitions are challenged by accused Nos.1 and 2 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 419, 384, 511 read with Section 34 of IPC and proceeding with the criminal case. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: 3.1. Respondent No.2 – Shivayya Swami lodged a complaint with Lokapur Police Station which was registered in Crime No.37/2021 on 18.05.2021. 3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that accused No.1 representing himself as Personnel Secretary of Industrial Ministry on 11.05.2021, at about 3.51 p.m., called - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 from the mobile telephone bearing No.9972615444 to the complainant and enquired about the head of the J.K.Cement Factory and the mobile telephone of said head of the factory. 3.3. Accused No.1 represented himself as Basavarajappa working as Personal Secretary to the Industrial Minister. Believing the said words of first accused, complainant furnished the mobile telephone number of Sri Umashankar Sadananda Choudhary, who was the head of J.K.Cement factory. 3.4. However, complainant enquired why such details are required. First accused said to have told him that the Minister would call the head of the factory and intimate the reasons. 3.5. Thereafter, it is Accused No.2, who said to have represented himself as the Minister, told the complainant that he would reveal certain things in Kannada language and it should be translated to the head of the factory in Hindi language. 3.6. In such conversation, second accused told the complainant that about 100 persons have signed a complaint along with one Yellappa Hegde and said the complaint has been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 forwarded to the Chief Minister and the gist of the complaint is that the factory is involved in illegal mining and due to such illegal mining, villagers have been affected. 3.7. Immediately complainant informed that such a complaint is totally uncalled for. It is also informed that J.K Cement factory is a very prestigious Company and they are not involved in any such illegal activities. 3.8. Immediately, the person representing himself as the Industrial Minister handed over the telephone to the first accused. At that juncture, first accused told him that the factory has not donated any money for the Parliament election. This should not be taken further in initiating the action against the factory and if any such action is initiated, factory would be closed down for a period of three months. Therefore, the matter is to be amicably settled. 3.9. After receipt of such complaint, police thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. 4. During the course of investigation police have collected necessary information insofar as the conversation is concerned and have filed the charge sheet. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 5. Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process. Same is called in question by the accused persons in these two petitions. 6. Sri Yadawad and Sourabh Hegde, learned advocates representing the accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively would contend that even assuming that the telephone call said to have been made is to be true for the sake of argument, no evidence whatsoever is placed on record to attract the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 484 of the Indian Penal Code and thus sought for quashing of the pending proceedings. 7. Per contra, Sri K.S.Patil, learned counsel representing the de-facto complainant and Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that, whether mere inducing itself would result in completion of the offence under Section 384 or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus sought for dismissal of the petitions. 8. They would further contend that the investigation agency during the course of investigation found out that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 accused Nos.1 and 2 have misused the name of the Personal Secretary of the Industrial Minister and that of the Industrial Minister only for a wrongful gain and therefore prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 419 are made out and sought for dismissal of the petitions. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, charge sheet material collected by the Investigation Agency would prima facie establish the conversation that took place between the complainant and the present accused persons. 11. Necessary materials are seized and placed on record by the Investigation Officer which would prima facie indicate the accused persons threatening the complainant regarding not meeting the Minister in connection with upcoming MP election. 12. Whether at all it is the petitioners who did the said act or not and whether the act attributable to the petitioners would constitute the offence under Sections 419 or 384 of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1783 CRL.P No. 103661 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 101175 of 2025 Indian Penal Code are all matters that are to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Judge after full fledged trial. 13. However, if no ingredients are made out from the charge sheet materials for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, it is always open for the petitioners to file necessary application seeking discharge or address argument to the effect that not to frame the charge for the said offence before the Trial Magistrate. 14. Reserving such liberty for the petitioners, this Court does not find any good grounds to allow the prayer of the petitioners. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV,kcm Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 98