Karnataka High Court
Dr. Raghavendra B Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688
CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200396 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DR. RAGHAVENDRA B NAYAK
S/O BHEEMAPA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PROFESSOR: DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY,
DIMHANS, DHARWAD.
R/O H NO. 1, GROUP A DIMHANS STAFF QUARTERS,
OPP. TO GERMAN HOSPITAL,
NARYANPUR, DHARWAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI AND
SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Location: HIGH MARKET YEARD POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
COURT OF REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALBURGI-585101.
2. DR. RAMESH BABU
S/O LATE B. BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PROFESSOR: RAICHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE,
R/O 30, DOCTOR QURTERS,
RIMS, RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. DASTAGIRSAHEB B. NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688
CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.06.2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND REGISTRATION OF CRIME IN CRIME
NO.0039/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY THE MARKET YARD
POLICE STATION RAICHUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT, RAICHUR AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition is filed by Professor in Department of Psychiatry, Dharwad Institute Of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS) Dharwad, who is arrayed as a sole accused in Crime No.39/2023 of Market Yard Police Station, Raichur, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM Court, Raichur.
2. Since the written complaint lodged by second respondent has culminated in registration of crime in -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR Crime No.39/2023, this Court deems it fit to extract the complaint and the same reads as under:
"F ೕ ಾ ದ ಷಯದನ ಯ ಾನ ರವರರ
ನಂ ೊಳ ವ ೇನಂದ ೆ £Á£ÀÄ ಾ/ ©.ರ ೕಶ"ಾಬು ತಂ ೆ &:
'.ಬಸವ ಾಜ, 48 ವಷ*, +ಾ:ಎ-. ., ಉ:/ಾ0ಧ ಪಕರು,
4 ಾ56 7ಾರ8ಾಡ, :ಾ:ಮ<ೆ ನಂ.30, ಾಕ=> ಾ ?*>, @A6 ಾಯಚೂರು ಇದುD, ೊಡುವ ದೂರು ಏ<ೆಂದ ೆ, ಸFೕ*ಚG <ಾ HಾಲವJ ಅನುLೆMೕದ 141 ಸಂ 7ಾನ ಅ4ಯ ಈ <ೆಲದ ಾನೂನನುO Pಾರ ೕಯ ಪ0+ೆಗRSೆ R ರುವ :ಾ ಾಂಶ8ೇ<ೆಂದ ೆ, Dishonest and temporary removal of original documents to take photocopies and to further use the information in any proceedings including judicial proceedings amount to theft and FIR to be registered under IPC", ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು 3<ೇ ವ TU ದೃWೕಕೃತ ಪ0 ಪ ೆಯ"ೇ ಾದ ೆ ಕ ಾXಯ8ಾY ಸZಷ=8ಾದ ಾರಣವನುO ಸೂ\ ದ ನಂತರವ]ೆ= ಸ^ಮ /ಾ0_ ಾರವJ ಸಂದPಾ*ನು:ಾರ ಮುಂ&ನ ಕ0ಮ ಜರುYಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಸFೕ*ಚG <ಾ Hಾಲಯ ಸZಷ=ಪ4 ರುaಾU ೆ.
&<ಾಂಕ 15.12.2022 ರಂದು ಾನ ಎ-.b. ಾಯಚೂರು ರವ@Sೆ ದೂರು cೕ4ದುD, ದೂ@ನ :ಾ ಾಂಶ8ೇ<ೆಂದ ೆ, ನನO Lಾರ ಒಳSೊಂ4ರುವ Pಾರ ೕಯ 8ೈದ Tೕಯ ಪ@ಷ Uನ ದ:ಾU8ೇಜು 4.8ೈ.ಎ-.b. ಾಯಚೂರು ಅವರು T0fನg ಮುಕದD ಯ ಪ ೆದು Pಾರ ೕಯ 8ೈದ Tೕಯ ಪ@ಷ Uನ ಮೂಲ ಪ0 ಯನುO &<ಾಂಕ 06.07.2018 ರವ ೆSೆ 4.8ೈ.ಎ-.b. ಾಯಚೂರು ರವರ ಸುಪ&*ಯ ಇಟು= ೊಂ4 ಾD ೆ. ಈ ಪ0ಕರಣ ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಲ ದ 3<ೇ ವ TU iಾಗೂ :ಾವ*ಜcಕ :ೇ8ೆಯ ರುವ ಾ. ಾಘ8ೇಂದ0 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR <ಾಯk ಮತುU ಇತರರು 4.8ೈ.ಎ-.b. ಾಯಚೂರು iೆಸ@ನ ರುವ Pಾರ ೕಯ 8ೈದ Tೕಯ ಪ@ಷ Uನ ದ:ಾU8ೇlನ ಾm ಯನುO ಕಳ ತನ ಾ4 ಅಪ0 ಾ ಕ8ಾY ದ:ಾU8ೇಜನುO ಜ ಾk6 ಾ4 ೊಂಡು ಅದರ ನಕಲು ಪ0 ಯನುO ಸೃn= ಅವರ maೈ ಗಳ +ೋaೆ :ೇ@ ೊಂಡು Hಾರ ಅನುಮ ಯು ಇಲ ೇ ಸ ತಃ ಸೃn= ರುವ 4.8ೈ.ಎ-.b. iೆಸ@ನ ರುವ Pಾರ ೕಯ 8ೈದ Tೕಯ ಪ@ಷ Uನ ದ:ಾU8ೇಜನುO ದೃWೕಕೃತ ಪ0 pಂದು ಸುಳ iೇR ೊಂಡು ಅಕ0ಮ ಾಭ ಪ ೆದು ನನSೆ £ÀµÀÖ mಂ:ೆ, ಅವ ಾನ iಾಗೂ rೕಸ ಾ4 ಾD ೆ. (ದೃWೕಕೃತ ಪ0 ಪ ೆಯ"ೇ ಾದ ಸಂದಭ*ದ ಆಳವ4ಸುವ ¢ü c ೆ*ಶನ ಕಲ.76 ಇಂ4ಯ5 ಎ ೆ56 ಆk= ಉಲ ಂt ಾD ೆ.) ಈ ಕೃತ ವJ ಾ ೆ*? Hಾu* v ೕ- wಾಣ 8ಾ bUಯ ಜರುYದುD, ಸದ@ Lಾರ8ಾY 4.8ೈ.ಎ-.b. ಾಯಚೂರುರವರು Lಾರxೆ ನ ೆ ನನSೆ ಸದj Lಾರ8ಾY cಮy wಾxೆಯ ದೂರು cೕಡಲು c ೆ*z ದ ಪ0 ಾರ <ಾನು ಇಂದು wಾxೆSೆ ಬಂದು ದೂgÀÄ cೕ4ರುaೆUೕ<ೆ."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, adverting to the allegations in the complaint, has placed reliance on several documents to demonstrate that the second respondent was transferred to DIMHANS, Dharwad pursuant to a State Government order dated 26.07.2019. This transfer, according to him, precipitated a series of litigations between DIMHANS, Dharwad where the petitioner is serving as Professor in the Department of -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR Psychiatry and the second respondent. Relying on two decisions of this Court, one rendered in criminal jurisdiction and another under writ jurisdiction, learned counsel submits that the second respondent, having virtually lost all such proceedings, is now misusing the police machinery. The present complaint resulting in registration of the impugned crime, he contends, is actuated by mala fides and intended solely to harass the petitioner, notwithstanding the withdrawal of W.P. No.102228/2021 by the second respondent. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench in Crl.P. No.103145/2022 connected with Crl.P. No.103100/2022. Referring to the relevant factual matrix, counsel argues that the petitioner's unilateral transfer was withdrawn by the State Government after taking note of the notification issued by the Medical Council of India through its Assistant Secretary vide letter dated 21.06.2018 addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichur Sub-Division, who was -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR then investigating P.C. No.3/2017. According to him, the withdrawal of the W.P. No.102228/2021 by the second respondent clearly presupposes acceptance of the State Government's decision to rescind the transfer notification, having realized that neither the parent department nor the borrowing institution, namely DIMHANS, Dharwad, had been consulted. It is in this context, counsel contends, that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the "B" report filed in P.C. No.3/2017 for the offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. He further submits that the petitioner has misused certain crucial documents to the serious prejudice of the second respondent, which requires thorough investigation in Crime No.39/2023. By drawing attention to the detailed -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR statement of objections, he contends that the petitioner has fraudulently and illegally created documents purportedly issued by one B.D. Jain, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, and that prima facie materials attracting Section 379 of the IPC are also forthcoming. Hence, he submits that no indulgence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is warranted.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader supports the submissions of respondent No.2 and contends that this is a fit case for investigation to proceed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the petition papers, this Court has given anxious consideration to the documents placed on record and has also examined the statement of objections filed by the second respondent.
7. The case on hand has a long and chequered history. The second respondent, presently serving as -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR Professor of Psychiatry at the Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, has been embroiled in multiple litigations with DIMHANS, Dharwad, the institution in which the petitioner is employed. The first round of litigation was triggered by a unilateral transfer notification issued by the State Government on 16.12.2019 transferring the second respondent permanently to DIMHANS, Dharwad without the consent of the institution. DIMHANS, being the borrowing authority, challenged the order before this Court. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the State Government. Upon re-examination, the State Government found that neither the parent department nor the borrowing institution had been consulted prior to ordering the permanent transfer. Consequently, the transfer notification was withdrawn. The second respondent questioned this decision in W.P. No.102228/2021, but subsequently withdrew the writ petition on 23.02.2022.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Once the withdrawal of the transfer notification attained finality on account of the second respondent withdrawing the writ petition, this Court is now required to examine whether the initiation of multiple criminal proceedings by way of private complaints and police complaints is justified. The conduct of the second respondent in approaching the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and in securing a recommendation directing the State Government to transfer him to DIMHANS, Dharwad, also warrants consideration.
9. The recommendation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes dated 03.08.2021 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.103049/2021. By order dated 27.06.2023, the said recommendations were quashed.
10. As regards the criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.202/2022 for offences under Section 4(iii) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(va), and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, and Section 217 read with Section 34 of IPC pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Dharwad, the same was challenged by the present petitioner in Crl.P. No.103145/2022 connected with Crl.P. No.103100/2022. The Director of DIMHANS, Dharwad, had also filed a connected petition. In the reported judgment rendered in the said matters, this Court took strong exception to the conduct of the second respondent. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the said judgment, which are relevant, are extracted below:
"14. If the aforesaid ingredients of the offences are considered on the backdrop of the facts narrated hereinabove, the unmistakable inference that can be drawn is gross reviling of the provisions of the Act. Reviling I say, is at every step, the petitioners have taken legal proceedings before this Court to call in question the entry of the complainant into DIMHANS. If taking of legal proceedings is construed as Atrocity against the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR Scheduled Tribes, it would have a chilling effect on exercise of constitutional rights by the persons like the petitioners. Not one crime, but three crimes are registered at different police stations. The first one in crime No.109/2020 before the Dharwad Sub- Urban Police Station; this results in a 'B' report being filed by the police; the 'B' report becomes final. The second crime is registered before the Cubbon Park Sub-Division Police Station in crime No.3/2021. The other one is before the Raichur Market Yard Police Station. This complaint is transferred to Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station and it is numbered as Crime No.202/2022, this is the impugned crime.
15. In the wake of mushrooming of cases of misuse of the provisions of the Act, the Apex Court in the case of GHULAM MUSTAFA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 603 observes and directs as follows:
"38. This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty- bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position."
(Emphasis supplied) It is therefore, necessary for every Officer who would institute a crime based on any complaint to be vigilant in registering such crimes without appropriate verification. The case at hand should become an eye opener to the Officers who would seek to register crimes on such allegations to follow the dictum of the Apex Court supra. As the Apex Court has observed that this cannot be treated as a manner to dilute the applicability of the stringent statute but only reminder not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.
16. The case at hand becomes an apt illustration to what the Apex Court has observed. A clear service dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is dressed with a colour of atrocity and multiple crimes are registered by the complainant. Therefore, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law, result in patent injustice."
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. On a careful perusal of the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quashing the proceedings in Crime No.202/2022, it is evident that the Bench had strongly deprecated the conduct of the second respondent. Despite having suffered adverse orders at the hands of this Court on 20.12.2023, the second respondent has once again initiated criminal prosecution through Crime No.39/2023, arising out of his written complaint dated 28.06.2023, which is now sought to be quashed. Having considered the findings recorded by this Court in W.P.No.103049/2021 and the observations extracted hereinabove from the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench, it is unfortunate that the second respondent presently serving as a Professor at the Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences has repeatedly misused the police machinery by lodging multiple FIRs, including a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. As rightly noted by the Co-ordinate Bench, the dispute between the parties is purely within the realm of service jurisprudence. After withdrawing
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR W.P.No.102228/2021 and thereby allowing the issue relating to his claim for transfer to DIMHANS, Dharwad to attain finality, the second respondent cannot now be permitted to resurrect the dispute through criminal proceedings on a vague allegation that the petitioner committed theft of certain documents.
12. Even on merits, a meticulous examination of the complaint reveals that the issue of whether the second respondent could have been transferred to DIMHANS, Dharwad was itself the subject of queries made by the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, and the Investigating Officer--the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichur Sub-Division to the Medical Council of India. In response, the Medical Council of India, through its Assistant Secretary, Mr. B.D. Jain, issued a clarification dated 21.06.2018 to the effect that the experience claimed by the second respondent as Senior House Officer from 01.10.2003 to 10.12.2007 at The Hull York Medical School, York, could not be reckoned
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR for the purpose of determining his eligibility as Assistant Professor in Psychiatry. This very clarification has been extensively referred to by the learned Magistrate while considering the 'B' report filed in P.C.No.3/2017. Paragraph 15 of the Magistrate's order specifically deals with this communication.
13. As correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation of theft appears wholly misconceived, particularly when the document in question a clarification issued by the Medical Council of India is a public document. This very document had been relied upon by the Investigating Officer in P.C.No.3/2017, and the petitioner had no role in its issuance. It is equally curious that the second respondent has never questioned the validity of the said clarification in any legally recognised manner. When these circumstances are cumulatively considered, what emerges is that the second respondent, driven by personal animosity, has been ill- advised and has embarked upon sustained criminal
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR litigation against the petitioner, which is extremely unfortunate. Even if the allegations in the present complaint are accepted at face value, they do not attract the ingredients of Section 379 IPC. The second respondent must refrain from unnecessarily invoking the criminal process and misusing police machinery against the petitioner and other staff members of DIMHANS, Dharwad.
14. The petitioner, an academician serving as Professor of Psychiatry, has been dragged into prolonged and unwarranted litigation. Initiation of criminal proceedings against academicians causes humiliation, mental trauma, and the looming threat of arrest, amounting to harassment. The present case exemplifies misuse of police machinery by the second respondent despite holding a responsible position at the Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences. This is clearly an abuse of process of law, warranting exercise of inherent powers
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6688 CRL.P No. 200396 of 2025 HC-KAR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The complaint dated 28.06.2023 at Annexure-A and the registration of Crime No.39/2023 by the Market Yard Police Station, Raichur, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, now pending before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Raichur, at Annexure-B, together with all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ/NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24/CT:SI