Karnataka High Court
Jeevan Kumar S/O Shivayya Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2220
CRL.P No. 100514 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100514 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. JEEVAN KUMAR S/O. SHIVAYYA HIREMATH
AGED 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KAVALURONI, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
2. CHAITANKUMR S/O. SHIVAYYA HIREMATH
AGED 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KAVALUR ONI, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. ISHWARAPPA S/O. KUMARSWAMI MULIMANI
AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NGO QUARTERS NEAR
RAMPUR HOSPITAL, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
4. SANDESHKUMAR
S/O. SANTOSH J NARSHIMHA MURTHI,
AGED 32 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR R/O. H. NO.162/1, 10TH WARD, BCM ROAD,
Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
VENKATAPUR, KAMALAPUR VENKATAPUR.
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.07 11:09:19
+0530
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOPPAL TOWN POLICE,
REP BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580001.
2. SHIVKUMAR S/O. BASAPPA KUKANUR
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. LECTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2220
CRL.P No. 100514 of 2025
R/O. SIDDESHWAR CIRCLE, NANDI NAGAR ROAD,
KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-58231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY
QUASHING COMPLAINT AND REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.
107/2027 BY THE KOPPAL TOWN P.S. AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO. 32/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL FOR THE OFFENCE
MADE PENAL U/SEC. 489A, 149, 120B, 489D, 182 489C, 201 OF IPC
AGAINST PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 4.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent No.1 - State.
2. The respondent No.2 has lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the petitioners, being on inimical terms with respondent No.2, planted counterfeit notes, and a printing machine in the complainant's house in order to falsely implicate him. The police, after registering the FIR, conducted an investigation, and submitted a charge sheet stating that accused No.1 conspired with other accused to falsely implicate respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the alleged offenses. Taking exception to the same, the present petition is filed.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2220 CRL.P No. 100514 of 2025
3. Accused No.1 had approached this Court in Crl.P No.102908/2022 (DD 7.1.2025), wherein the impugned proceedings insofar as it relates to accused No.1 was quashed by observing as follows:
"8. It is undisputed that the police, on receiving credible information that counterfeit notes were being manufactured in the house of Respondent No.2, conducted a search and discovered that Respondent No.2 was in possession of the counterfeit notes and a printing machine. In the presence of the complainant, the counterfeit notes and the printing machine were seized and taken to the police station on 21.07.2017. Respondent No.2 was taken to the police station, and the next day, he lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioner had planted the counterfeit notes and printing machine in his house. Therefore, the counterfeit notes and the printing machine were not seized from the petitioner, but were seized from the house of Respondent No.2. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the self-serving statement of the defacto complainant and his close relatives. The co- accused, in their confession statement, stated that they conspired with Accused No.1 to falsely implicate Respondent No.2. However, the confession statement of the co-accused is inadmissible in law under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, there is no corroborative material to substantiate that the petitioner planted the counterfeit notes and printing machine in the house of Respondent No.2 in order to falsely implicate him.
9. In the absence of any incriminating material to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The offenses alleged against the petitioner are cognizable, and therefore, the police should have registered the FIR or entered the information in the Station House Diary before -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2220 CRL.P No. 100514 of 2025 conducting the raid. Furthermore, the counterfeit notes and the printing machine were not seized from the petitioner, and a panchanama was drawn on 23.07.2017 in the police station for the seizure of the counterfeit notes and printing machine in the presence of the panchas.
4. This petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in the above petition. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in SC No.32/2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 is quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24