Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vinay Kapoor vs State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35588
CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8600 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. VINAY KAPOOR
S/O G RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NADA KACHERI, NANDANGUDI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE - 562114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YADUNANDAN N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY IJOOR POLICE,
Digitally
signed by RAMANAGARA CIRCLE,
REKHA R RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562159
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560001
2. THE TAHSILDAR
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 562159
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35588
CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CR.NO.67/2023 REGISTERED
BY RESPONDENT POLICE, IJOOR POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 177, 197, 465 AND
466 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
AND CJM COURT, RAMANAGARA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1, is seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.67/2023 of Ijoor PS, for the offence punishable Sections 177, 197, 465 and 466 IPC.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the registering of case and resultant FIR and investigation are illegal and invalid and as such liable to be set aside. The concerned police without proper appreciation of allegations made in the complaint have registered the case and proceeding with the investigation. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR Since petitioner is a Government servant, it is necessary to issue show cause notice and make enquiry, only after which criminal proceedings may be initiated. There are no specific allegations against him. There is also inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The Second Division Assistant working with petitioner was served with show cause notice. However, criminal proceedings are initiated against the petitioner without providing him opportunity. Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.
3. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents would submit that at the relevant point of time petitioner was working as Sheristedar in the office of Tahsildar, Ramanagar Taluk. From 16.10.2019 to 20.04.2021, he also worked as Election Sheristedar. From 26.05.2020 to 20.04.2021, he was incharge of the Record Room of the said office. In -4- NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR respect of Sy.No.35/31 of Basavanapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk, appeal was pending before the Deputy Commissioner. In the said proceedings, some of the parties produced certified copies of documents and the Deputy Commissioner has sought clarification as to the genuineness of the said documents. Therefore, verification was made as to the grant order in respect of Sy.No.35/3 and it was observed that in the cataloging index, there is no reference to such order. In proceedings bearing No.LNDCR/207/2014-15, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner) has passed orders setting aside the entries made in handwriting in the RTC and declared all the transactions in consequence to such entries as void and that the said land is free from all encumbrances and that the said land should be taken to the custody of the Government.
3.1 In this regard, Tahsildar issued notice dated 26.10.2021 to the concerned case worker Sri.Girish B, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR Second Division Clerk. He has submitted reply stating that petitioner who was the Sheristedar has issued certified copies without signature of Girish B and no record, the certified copy of which is issued by the petitioner is available in the Record Room. This fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner through letter dated 29.10.2021, by the Tahsildar. The enquiry so made indicate that while working as Election Sheristedar fropm 16.10.2019 to 20.04.2021 in the Election branch and as incharge of Record Section from 26.05.2020 to 20.04.2021, petitioner has concocted the document and issued it by certifying the same as true copy of the original where as no such grant order is passed and accordingly, the complaint is filed.
3.2 Based on the said complaint, the concerned police have registered the case in Cr.No.67/2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 197, 465 and 466 IPC and taken up investigation. There is prima facie -6- NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR material to proceed against the petitioner. Matter requires detailed investigation and pray to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time petitioner was working as Sheristedar in the office of Tahsildar, Ramanagar Taluk. From 16.10.2019 to 20.04.2021, he also worked as Election Sheristedar. From 26.05.2020 to 20.04.2021, he was incharge of the Record Section of the said office. It appears during hearing of Crl.RP.Nos.7 to 10/2015-16, when one of the party produced certified copies of a grant order, the Deputy Commissioner entertained a doubt as to whether there is any grant made in respect of land in Sy.No.35/3 of Basavanapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk and sought clarification as to the genuineness of the said documents.
6. On making enquiry, Tahasildar noticed that in the cataloging index of the records maintained in the office of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR Tahsildar, there is no reference to grant order in respect of Sy.No.35/3. Also in proceedings bearing No.LNDCR/207/2014-15, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner) has passed orders setting aside the entries made in handwriting in the RTC and declared all the transactions in consequence to such entries as void and that the said land is free from all encumbrances and also directed that the said land should be taken to the custody of the Government.
7. After these developments, the Tahsildar issued notice dated 26.10.2021 to the concerned case worker Sri.Girish B, Second Division Clerk. He has submitted reply stating that petitioner who was the Sheristedar has issued certified copies in question without signature of Girish B and no record, the certified copy of which is issued by the petitioner is available in the Record section. This fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner through letter dated 29.10.2021, by the Tahsildar. The enquiry so made indicate that while working as Election Sheristedar -8- NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR from 16.10.2019 to 20.04.2021 in the Election branch and as incharge of Record Section from 26.05.2020 to 20.04.2021, petitioner has concocted the document and/or issued it by certifying the same as true copy of the original, even though there is no grant order is in existence and accordingly, the complaint is filed.
8. Based on the said complaint, the concerned police have registered the case in Cr.No.67/2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 197, 465 and 466 IPC and taken up investigation. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is prohibition under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance to the offence punishable under Section 177 IPC, except by way of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, by the public servant. Section 177 of IPC criminalizes an act of knowingly providing false information to a public servant, when legally obliged to do so. It is pertinent to note that Section 177 IPC is also one of the offences, the cognizance of which is prohibited -9- NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR under Section 195 Cr.P.C, except by way of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
9. However, the question of the Court or the public servant filing complaint alleging forgery or concoction would arise, if the forgery or concoction are subsequent to the production of documents before the said public servant or the Court as the case may be. Therefore, question of the public servant or the Court filing complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not arise. This aspect is clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions:
(i) Sachidanand Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.(Sachidanand Singh)1
(ii) Surjit Singh & Ors Vs. Balbir Singh (Surjit Singh)2
(iii) Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.(Iqbal Singh)3 1 (1998) 2 SCC 493 2 (1996) 3 SCC 533 3 (2005) 4 SCC 370
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. In fact in the matter of Patel Laljibhai Somabhai Vs. State of Gujarat (Patel Laljibhai Somabhai)4, considering the purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 476 Cr.P.C, 1898, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"(i) The underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) Section 476 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties to start criminal prosecution on frivolous vexations or unsufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court's control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process or the administration of public justice which is the direct and immediate object or the victim of these offences. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party who might ultimately suffer can persuade the Civil Court to file complaint.
(Para 6) 4 1971(2) SCC 376
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR
(ii) The offences about which the court alone is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceeding in that court so that it can without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party. It, therefore, appears to be more appropriate to adopt the strict construction of confirming the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(c) only to those cases in which the offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceeding in character as such party. The Legislature could not have intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(e) to the offences mentioned therein, when committed by a party to a proceeding in that court prior to his becoming such party.
(Para 6)"
11. In the above decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. would attract only when the offences alleged are committed
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR after the documents were produced before the Court or the public servant as the case may be. In the present case, the specific allegations made by the complainant is that the documents were forged, concocted and thereafter produced before the Deputy Commissioner, as if they are the certified copy of original documents. When the Deputy Commissioner enquired about alleged grant and after conducting preliminary enquiry, it was found that there is no such grant order in respect of the land in question and it was petitioner who is instrumental in issuing certified copy of a document which is not in existence. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance is not attracted.
12. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. While making enquiry about the certified copies, the Tahsildar has come to know that it was issued by the petitioner and therefore, further enquiry by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner was not necessary. In the light of the prima facie case, proceedings cannot be quashed and accordingly, the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35588 CRL.P No. 8600 of 2023 HC-KAR ORDER Petition filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30