Karnataka High Court
Sri Divakar Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326
CRL.P No.102413 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102413 OF 2022
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DIVAKAR PATIL, AGED 54 YEARS,
PRESIDENT, JAI KISAN WHOLESALE
VEGETABLE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION,
GANDINAGAR, P.B. ROAD, BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. KARIMSAB BAGAWAN, AGED 65 YEARS,
SECRETARY, JAI KISAN WHOLESALE VEGETABLE
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, GANDINAGAR,
P.B. ROAD, BELAGAVI.
3. SRI. UMESH KALLAPPA PATIL, AGED 55 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, JAI KISAN WHOLESALE VEGETABLE
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, GANDINAGAR,
P.B. ROAD, BELAGAVI.
MOHANKUMAR
ALL R/O. C/O. JAI KISAN WHOLESALE
B SHELAR
Digitally signed by
VEGETABLE MARKET, P.B. ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001.
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.10 14:16:23
+0530
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY
MALMARUTHI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326
CRL.P No.102413 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. SRI. SIDAGOUDA MODAGI,
AGED MAJOR, STATE PRESIDENT,
BHARATIYA KRISHAK SANGH (REG),
R/O.NO.1B, 4059/4D, 2ND FLOOR,
PATIL BUILDING, OPP. SARDAR GROUNDS,
BELAGAVI-590002.
3. SRI. SANJAY BASALINGAPPA BHAVI,
AGE MAJOR, OCC.: BUSINESS,
R/O. GURUBASAV PLAZA,
TAHASILDAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590002.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NITIN R. BOLBANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND F.I.R. DATED 25.04.2022
REGISTERED IN MALMARUTHI P.S. CRIME NO.52/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 417, 420, 464,
468, 465 R/W 149 OF I.P.C. ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC II COURT,
BELAGAVI IN SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATE TO THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN (ACCUSED NO. 2,3,4,5) AS THE SAME BEING ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW AND ARE ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN
LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR 'FURTHER
HEARING', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326
CRL.P No.102413 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) The petitioners have filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the impugned complaint and FIR dated 25.04.2022 registered in Malmaruti Police Station Crime No. 52/2022 for offences punishable u/S 419, 417, 420, 464, 468, 465 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC pending on the file of learned Second Addl. JMFC, Belagavi, insofar as accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the threshold submits that the complaint lodged by the second respondent who claims to be the State President of Bharatiya Krishika Sangha, is an utter abuse of the process of the Court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are members and office bearers of Jai Kissan Wholesale Vegetable Market Association, Belagavi, which is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and the Society is engaged in -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR the business of wholesale vegetable, carrying on their business established at P.B. Road, Gandhi Nagar, Belagavi. The members of the Association are also owners of various properties which were adjoining each other and therefore with an understanding that if the immovable properties are jointly developed by the Association, they would be able to establish a market for the purpose of dealing with wholesale vegetables, accordingly all individual owners of immovable properties joined together and approached the competent authority, firstly seeking conversion of the lands so that they may proceed to form a layout for the purpose of establishing shops. Accordingly all the individual owners submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, seeking conversion of the lands in Sy. No. 677, 678, 686/1, 686/2, 696/1, 697/2, 698/1 and 698/2.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, after collecting requisite fee and charges passed an order of conversion on 29.08.2015, 21.09.2015 and 01.01.2016. Thereafter the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR Association applied for sanction of the layout plan at the hands of the Belgaum Urban Development Authority and accordingly the authorities approved the layout plan. Pursuant to the approval granted for formation of layout, the members of the Association and the Association have invested huge sums of money to put up shops in the layout. At the time of construction there were several obstructions that were caused in the formation of layout and the construction of the shops, particularly at the hands of the rival APMC traders who were running the shops at the APMC yard. Several attempts were made to stall the formation of the private market at the hands of the association.
4. The first of the cases that was filed in that regard was in W.P. No. 102422-102423/2017. Two individual persons had filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.05.2016 which was a provisional sanction granted by the Belgaum Urban Development Authority. However by filing a memo, petition was withdrawn and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR liberty was given to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy. One of the two petitioners thereafter filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P. No. 17562/2017, once again raising a challenge to order 16.05.2016 and also sought for a direction to the authorities to take action against the Jai Kissan Wholesale Vegetable Merchants Association, not to put up the construction pursuant to the provisional order dated 16.05.2016. However a memo was filed by the petitioner stating that the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous since this Court in W.P. No. 107478/2017 and connected matters directed the Commissioner of the Urban Development Authority to consider the applications filed by the Association for issuance of licence for construction of the building while directing that the authorities shall not act upon earlier notice issued. Taking note of the submissions made in the memo the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. Thereafter one more writ petition was filed by another person claiming to be a businessman which was thereafter connected with another writ petition filed by two other persons, since both the writ petitions were directed against the construction of the private market at the hands of Jai Kisan Wholesale Vegetable Merchants Association.
6. The Co-ordinate bench took note of the fact that similar prayers were made in the public interest litigation in W.P. No. 17562/2017 which came to be dismissed on 30.07.2020. It was noticed that on 11.02.2020 a licence was already issued to the Association to start the wholesale vegetable business. The writ petitions were disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioners to avail all such remedies in law in the event they wish to challenge the licence granted to the association.
7. Learned counsel submits that another set of persons who are none other than the rival businessmen again filed -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR another public interest litigation in W.P. No. 36795/2019 raising a challenge to the provisional order dated 16.05.2016. The public interest litigation was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were required to approach the concerned authorities before filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same set of persons again filed public interest litigation in W.P. No. 3085/2020. However, the Division Bench held that since challenge are sought to be raised to orders passed in the year 2014 and 2016, there was inordinate delay in filing the petition. It was also held that the orders were only for conversion or change of the land user which do not affect the title of the property and moreover it was held that if the petitioners contend an offence of impersonation at the hands of some other persons, they can always set criminal law in motion.
8. Learned counsel submits that it is this observation made at the hands of the Division Bench which prompted the petitioners therein to file a private complaint before -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR the jurisdiction Magistrate, i.e., learned II Addl. JMFC (Sr. Dn.), Belagavi, in P.C. No. 19/2020.
9. Learned counsel submits that the allegations in the private complaint is that one of the portions of the land where the private market is sought to be established belonged to one Basalingappa (father of the third respondent herein) and that he had died on 29.11.2011. However, by impersonating the said Basalingappa application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of the lands along with land belonging to Sri Basalingappa. It was therefore alleged that the office bearers of the Association are guilty of committing forgery and fraud on the authorities. It is also stated in the private complaint that the association managed to obtain an order of conversion on forged signatures.
10. The learned counsel would hasten to add at this juncture that this is the very same allegation made by the petitioner in his complaint made to the respondent Police.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR However pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in another public interest litigation which was filed by the private complainants along with few other persons in W.P. No. 11320/2020 where it was held that the petitioners are not pro bono litigants and there appears to be a personal interest in the subject matter, the Division Bench declined to entertain the public interest litigation. The complainants did not pursue the private complaint. By order dated 10.11.2021 the private complaint was dismissed for non prosecution. It is thereafter the complaint is filed by the respondent No.2 herein with the same set of allegations as was made in the private complaint.
11. Learned counsel submits that the second respondent also had filed public interest litigation in W.P. No. 21294/2022, after filing of the complaint before the jurisdictional Police. The said writ petition was dismissed while observing that on the basis of the material on record the Division Bench found that case after case has been
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR filed against the respondent Association of Merchants. It was noticed that many of those who had filed the cases were also the merchants. Some of them claim to be merchants (including the second respondent herein). The Division Bench held that it is not that all the petitioners are naïve to the worldly affairs and therefore the public interest litigation was filed after a huge delay.
12. It was noticed that forgery and fraud are alleged against the respondent Association with no material particulars. It was observed that no such allegation was made in the earlier round of litigations. It was noticed that there was an admission in the petition that the Association had put up substantial construction and thereafter applied for permission for construction, but it is the contention of the petitioners that the permission was granted illegally after construction had commenced. However the Division Bench held that no documents were furnished by the petitioners to prove the extent of construction. It was also held that the petitioners may
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR challenge by way of appeal under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, the construction being put up by the Association. However the petitioners had not explained as to why such an appeal remedy was not availed by them.
13. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Division Bench was taken up by the second respondent and others before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition Diary No. 19441/2024 and the same was dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents therein, while noticing the fact that the High Court had granted liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy of statutory appeal under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
14. Learned counsel submits that these are all factual information that the Court has to take into consideration, having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel that this is a blatant violation and abuse of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR process of the Court at the hands of the second respondent.
15. The learned counsel would also contend that the contesting respondent has no locus standi to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners, since admittedly the allegation is in respect of an immovable property not belonging to the second respondent. In fact the third respondent is the one who should have been aggrieved by the alleged act of impersonation. It is submitted that the third respondent is the son of the deceased person and subsequent to the order of conversion granted by the Deputy Commissioner, he has transferred the said property in favour of the association by a registered document.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that it is a well settled position of law that a criminal proceeding can be initiated by any person, irrespective of whether he or she is a victim of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR incident or not. Criminal prosecution can be initiated by setting the law in motion if an offence is made out under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)/ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Moreover it is submitted that the allegation made by the second respondent in the written complaint is that by the act of impersonation, a public officer such as the Deputy Commissioner has been duped to consider an application on behalf of a dead person. Therefore, since a public harm is pointed out in the written complaint, it cannot be said that the second respondent has no locus standi.
17. Learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that going by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to various petitions filed earlier, which are found on record, it cannot be said that the second respondent is abusing the process of law. It is submitted that the action of the second respondent commenced with the filing of the complaint and it is only thereafter that he filed one more
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR writ petition and other than these two acts, the second respondent has not been a party to any other proceedings.
18. Learned counsel would therefore submit that unwanted allegations are sought to be made against the second respondent that he is abusing the process of this Court and has been filing vexatious complaints or petitions against the petitioners. It is submitted that the second respondent is the State President of Bharatiya Krishika Sangha, a registered association and he has initiated proceedings in order to protect the interest of the farmers and to bring to the notice of the concerned the illegal acts on the part of the petitioners. The learned counsel would therefore submit that it should be left to the investigating officer to investigate into the allegations made by the second respondent and if any offence is made out, then he may proceed to take action against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that it is not denied by the petitioners that such an application was indeed filed before the Deputy Commissioner and it is also not denied by the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR petitioners that Sri Basalingappa Bhavi was not alive as on the date of said application. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that this criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be dismissed.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent, learned HCGP and perused petition papers.
20. Having gone through the material available on record, it is clear that various writ petitions/ public interest litigations have been filed before this Court and before the Principal Bench in respect of the establishment of a private market at the hands of the petitioners who are the office bearers of Jai Kissan Wholesale Vegetable Merchants Association. In W.P. no. 21294/2022 dated 10.01.2024 the Division Bench has listed out all the earlier writ petitions filed against the office bearers of Jai Kissan Wholesale Vegetable Merchants Association and noticed the fact that many of those who had filed cases were also
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR merchants. Some of them claim to be agriculturists. The Division Bench therefore held that such persons cannot contend that they are naïve to the worldly affairs. It was noticed that none of them declared their educational background and financial status. In the cause title, it was noticed that all the petitioners claimed to be agriculturists. Forgery and fraud were alleged against the Association with no material particulars.
21. It was also noticed that such allegation regarding forgery and fraud were not made in the earlier rounds of litigation. It was therefore held that such action on the part of the association in putting up the construction can be challenged by way of an appeal under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. It was also held that no explanation was offered as to why the appeal remedy was not availed by the petitioners. The second respondent herein was the first petitioner in the said public interest litigation in W.P. No. 21294/2022. The second respondent along with others approached the Apex
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 19441/2024 and the SLP was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, viz., to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioners is therefore right in his submission that a civil dispute is sought to be converted as a criminal case against the petitioners.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sachin Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4415/2023 dated 30.01.2024 held that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. It was held that a commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. It was held that the learned Magistrate failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court.
23. In Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr, in SLP (Criminal) No. 1570/2021 dated 12.03.2024 the Apex Court noticed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sarabjit Kaur V. State of Punjab and Anr.1 where it was held that a mere breach of contract by one of the parties would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case. Similarly in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. V. State of Kerala2, it was noticed that the Apex Court had held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The Apex Court therefore proceeded to hold that apparently civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution. It was held that the Courts did not see any 1 (2023) 5 SCC 360 2 (2015) 8 SCC 293
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR criminal element in the matter which was of a civil nature and accordingly the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the criminal proceedings.
24. In B. Venkateswaran and Others V. P. Bakthavatchalam3 the Apex Court held that from the material on record it appears that a civil dispute is converted into a criminal dispute and that too for the offences under the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. It was also noticed in the said case that earlier writ petitions were filed before the Madras High Court and pursuant to the directions issued by the High court, the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, conducted the inspection and found that there was absolutely no encroachment by the temple.
25. Having regard to the undisputed fact as found hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the second respondent and many such persons who are aggrieved of the establishment of a private market in the 3 (2023) 11 SCC 182
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR neighborhood have instituted various proceedings including writ petitions, public interest litigations and a private complaint earlier which was dismissed for non prosecution. It would be necessary to place on record the proceedings initiated by various persons including the second respondent against the petitioners and their Association which are as follows:
1) W.P. No. 102422/2017(GM-LB) - Dismissed as withdrawn on 24.04.2017
2) W.P.No.104958 & 106529-538/2017 - Disposed on 18.08.2020
3) W.P.No.20667-671/2017 - Disposed on 18.08.2020
4) W.P.No.106935/2018 & W.P.No.108573-579/2019 D.D.18.08.2020
5) W.P.No.36795/2019 (LB-Res-PIL) - Disposed on 23.09.2019
6) W.P.No.3085/2020 (LB-Res-PIL) - Disposed on 04.03.2020
7) W.P.No.17562/2017 - Dismissed on 30.07.2020
8) W.P.No.11320/2021 - Dismissed on 01.03.2021
9) Misc. Appeal No.15/2020 before X Addl. District & Sessions Judge Belagavi.
10) P.C.No.19/2020 filed before JMFC II Court Belagavi - dismissed on 10.11.2021.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR
26. It is also relevant to notice the fact that third respondent herein is the son of late Sri Basalingappa Bhavi and he is standing with the petitioners pursuant to him executing a registered document transferring the property which earlier belonged to Sri Basalingappa Bhavi, which is the subject matter of the complaint given by the second respondent herein. When the third respondent is standing along with the petitioners firmly, having executed a registered document and transferring the immovable property in favour of the Association to enable the Association to form a private market, it cannot be said that the second respondent is naively pursuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Merely because the second respondent contends that the Deputy Commissioner has been kept in dark regarding the death of Sri Basalingappa Bhavi and the application contained his signature, that by itself will not enable second respondent to file a criminal complaint against the petitioners.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR
27. At any rate, the written complaint given by the second respondent does not disclose the offence sought to be stated in the complaint. It is necessary to notice that in the complaint the second respondent has quoted the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which was not necessary. It is for the investigating officer to decide as to which of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code get attracted from a plain reading of the complaint. As observed by the Apex Court in the cases quoted hereinabove, the second respondent is trying to make out a case of cognizable offence, although the same is not evident on the basis of the allegations sought to be imputed against the petitioners. Such action on the part of the second respondent cannot be countenanced.
28. Although this Court had expressed its opinion that the petition has to be allowed by imposing exemplary costs on the second respondent, nevertheless this Court would stay its hands from imposing exemplary costs on the second respondent only for the fact that the written
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8326 CRL.P No.102413 of 2022 HC-KAR complaint given by the second respondent was earlier in time and thereafter the second respondent had filed a writ petition. All the other writ proceedings and public interest litigations were filed by other persons and therefore the benefit of doubt is given to the second respondent.
29. Consequently this Court proceeds to allow the criminal petition. The complaint and FIR dated 24.05.2022 registered before the Malmaruti Police Station Crime No. 52/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 419, 417, 420, 464, 468, 465 r/w 149 of IPC on the file of learned Second Addl. JMFC, Belagavi, is hereby quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE BVV/ CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1