Karnataka High Court
Shreenath S/O. Sharanappa Kalabshetti vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864
CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102994 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHREENATH S/O. SHARANAPPA KALABSHETTI,
AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAKANUR, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587103.
2. SHARANAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KALABAHETTI,
AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAKANUR, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587103
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RAMDURG POLICE STATION,
Digitally R/BY. ADDL. S.P.P.,
signed by V N HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BADIGER
DHARWAD BENCH, DIST. DHARWAD.
Location:
High Court of 2. SHIVAPPA PARAPPA ARAGINASHETTI
Karnataka,
Dharwad AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Bench R/O. KAKANUR, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.453/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 AND 506 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC
PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAMDURG,
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 BY ALLOWING
THIS PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864
CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and respondent No.2 served.
2. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC with the following prayer:
"To quash the entire proceedings in CC No.453/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506 R/W. Section 149 of IPC pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Ramdurg, against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 by allowing this petition."
3. Facts in the brief which are at most necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864 CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024 3.1 Sri.Shivappa S/o Parappa Araginashetti lodged a complaint with Ramdurg police contending that he was in occupation of land in survey No.36 to the extent of 3 acres 28 guntas belonging to Narayan alias Babu Vittalrao Ranade. It is his case that said Narayan Ranade received sum of Rs.12,000/- from his father on 9/3/1981 and had given the possession of the said land to him. It is his case that after the death of the father of the complainant, he got revenue entries mutated in his name and he is continuing in position of the property. It is also his case that Narayan Ranade left the village and settled in Mumbai and died about 20 years earlier.
3.2 It is his further complaint that one Shreenath Sharanappa Kalpabhetti created duplicate Aadhaar card in the name of Narayan Ranade and created a documents in his favour and sold the same to the petitioner No.1.
Petitioner No.2 is the son of the petitioner No.1 and petitioners having the full knowledge of the alleged -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864 CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024 duplication of the revenue records and purchased the same and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
3.2 Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and others and learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences.
3.3 Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
4. Sri.Iranagouda K. Kabbur would contend that in the case on hand, petitioners are in fact the victims inasmuch as they were not aware whether Narayan Ranade has been impersonated by some one else and revenue documents were created. Therefore, it is his case that petitioners are nowhere responsible for the alleged crime and filing of the charge sheet and continuation of the criminal proceedings against them is incorrect.
5. He would also contend that only remedy for Shivappa if any, if he has been cheated by said Shreenath or someone else is to approach the civil Court. In a matter of this nature, filing a criminal case against innocent -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864 CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024 purchasers has become the practice in the society only with an intention to blackmail the purchasers who have purchased the property by paying the valuable consideration, with the criminal actions and thus sought for quashing of the charge sheet.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the filing of charge sheet.
7. Second respondent-defacto complainant Shivappa is served with a notice and remained absent.
8. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court has perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, according to the complainant, he is in possession of the property as his father has paid sum of Rs.12,000/- to the original owner viz., Narayan Ranade.
10. In otherwords, the present possession according to the revision petitioner, to the property bearing survey No.32, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas by the complainant is only in the form of civil nature in holding on -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864 CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024 to the property on the basis of the alleged usufructuary mortgage.
11. The complainant being only the mortgagee on account of his father paying Rs.12,000/- to the original owner, does not enjoy any better right so far as the sale transaction that took place between the first petitioner and Shreenath except for mortgage money with interest.
12. Even assuming that any such sale transaction has taken place by impersonation, it is for the legal representatives of Narayan Ranade to take action against the petitioners herein including the Shreenath or someone else. For that matter, assuming that the complainant stands in the shoes of the original owner for challenging the sale transaction between Shreenath and the present petitioners are concerned the only remedy is to file appropriate civil proceedings.
13. Reserving such liberty for the petitioners, the criminal action against the present petitioners among them first petitioner is the purchaser and second petitioner being the son of the first petitioner having purchased the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6864 CRL.P No. 102994 of 2024 property for valuable consideration, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against them result in the abuse of process of law.
14. Accordingly following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The pending criminal case insofar as the present petitioners are concerned pending in CC No. 453/2024 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21