Karnataka High Court
Shantabai Dundappa Pujari vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:586
CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102247 OF 2017
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTABAI DUNDAPPA PUJARI
AGE:66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. MANJUNATH DUNDAPPA PUJARI
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF ROHINAL VILLAGE,
BAGEWADI, DIST:BAGALKOT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally signed by
2. PUNDALIK S/O. SHIVAPPA PUJARI @ HUGAR
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2A. DAKSHAYINI W/O PUNDALIK HUGAR
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
2B. NIVEDITA D/O. PUNDALIK HUGAR
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
2C. SUPRIYA D/O. PUNDALIK HUGAR
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
2D. PRAJWAL S/O. PUNDALIK HUGAR
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:586
CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017
HC-KAR
2E. RENUKA D/O. PUNDALIK HUGAR
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. HOLE HANGARAGI TQ. BIJAPUR,
NOW R/O. NEAR SAJJAN HIGH SCHOOL,
IBRAHIMPUR, VIJAYAPUR,
R2(C) TO R2(E) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2A.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2(A);
R2(C), R2(D), R2(E) ARE MINORS R/BY R2(A);
R2(B) NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE
PETIITONERS/ACCUSED NO.5 AND 6 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 419, 467, 468, 418, 420, 465, 471, 474, 109 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF SR. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC BILGI IN C.C.NO. 44 OF 2016 (PC.NO. 02 OF 2013),
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.Harshawardhan M. Patil, appearing for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader-Smt.Kiritlata R. Patil, appearing for respondent No.1-State.
2. The petitioners, being accused Nos.5 and 6 in C.C.No.44 of 2016, have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code1 with the following prayer: 1
Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR "WHEREFORE, for these and among other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble court that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to a. Quash the Charge Sheet filed against the petitioners/Accused No.5 and 6 for the offences punishable U/sec. 419, 467,468 418, 420, 465, 471, 474,109 R/w sec. 149 of IPC pending on the file of Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC Bilgi in CC No. 44/2016 (PC No. 02/2013) in the interest of Justice and Equity.
b. Pass any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the ends of Justice and Equity."
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1 Second respondent who is now deceased had filed a private complaint in P.C.No.02/2012 alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 406, 417, 420, 465, 471, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code2 against the petitioners and others.
3.2 Learned trial Magistrate after considering the contents of the private complaint referred the matter under Section 2 Hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code3 to the Jurisdictional Police to investigate the matter.
4. Pursuant to the same, Bilgi Police Station, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bagalkote District registered the case in Crime No.126 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 406, 417, 420, 465, 471, read with Section 149 of the IPC.
5. After registering the case, the police thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and others.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused No.5 and 6 have sought for quashing of the charge sheet on the following grounds:
"It is submitted that the charge sheet filed by the
1.O., is false concocted and the petitioners are inserted in the charge sheet as accused No. 5 and 6 with the instigation of the ill-wishers of the petitioners. Hence the same is not tenable as such the charge sheet may be quashed the petitioners herein.
It is submitted that there is no whisper by respondent No.2 in his private complaint regarding the involvement of the petitioners, however the I.O., had falsely implicated them as Accused No. 5 3 Hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC' -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR and 6 in order to harass them with the instigation of the ill-wishers and filed a false charge sheet against them. Hence the same be quashed.
It is submitted that the petitioners are also the legal heirs of the Propositus deceased Kallappa and they are also having share in the landed property mentioned in the private complaint filed by respondent No.2. Merely because they are the legal heirs they should not be inserted as accused in the charge sheet.
It is submitted that the complainant Respondent No. 2 had clearly mentioned the acts and overt acts against accused No. 1 to 6 who are mentioned as accused in the Private Complaint. And there is no whisper regarding the acts and overtacts of accused No.2 to 8 in which the charge sheet filed by the 1.0., the I.O., has falsely implicated the petitioners in the charge sheet by deleting the names of the real culprits in the charge sheet alleging that there is no evidence against accused No. 2 to 6 of the private complaint. And he has falsely implicated accused No. 2 to 8 in the charge sheet only to harass them with the instigation of the ill-wishers. It is submitted that there is no any documentary evidence to implicate the present petitioners as accused even then the I.O. has implicated the present petitioners are accused No. 5 and 6 is highly illegal, capricious and the same is not tenable under law.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR It is submitted that the petitioners have executed the sale deed of their property out of RS No. 102/1+2+3 to the extent of 1A 08G which was fallen to their share. The complainant or his relatives have no right or interest over the said property as such the question of forging the document or executing a false registered sale deed by the petitioners does not arise. Hence the charge sheet filed against the petitioners is not sound and sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed against the petitioners.
It is submitted that the petitioners have not at all committed the offences much less alleged in the Charge Sheet but the said Charge sheet is filed only with an intention to harass the petitioners hence the same is liable to be quashed.
The petitioners have produced the certified copy of the Private Complaint bearing No. 02/2013 Charge Sheet filed under CC No. 44/2016 Certified Copy of the Order sheet of CC No. 44/2016 before the Sr. Civil judge and JMFC Bilgi for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court."
7. Sri.Harshawardhan M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that petitioner Nos.5 and 6 possessed only their share in the property, which has been alienated and they sold the property only to the extent of their share. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR Therefore, there cannot be any allegation against the petitioners for impersonation or other allied offences and thus, sought for quashing of the pending criminal case.
8. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the filing of the charge sheet, taking cognizance and proceeding with the criminal case.
9. She would further contend that admittedly the property is a joint family property and there cannot be any specific share allotted to the accused Nos.5 and 6 in the absence of any suit for partition or partition deed entered into by the parties.
10. The petitioners are the relatives of the other vendors. Other vendors admittedly did not appear before the Sub-Registrar and someone else appeared on their behalf to execute the sale deed. It shows that the petitioners were knowing fully well about the crime being committed and kept quiet and therefore they are also liable for the alleged offences and sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR
12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, even though present petitioners were properly represented and executed the sale deed, they were very well aware that the other vendors were not available as on the date of registration.
13. It is noted from charge sheet materials that some of the other vendors had died long prior to the registration. The petitioners, being relatives, were aware that those persons were not real vendors and they kept quiet and then subscribed their signature and joined in the execution of the sale deed, which is a common sale deed executed by all the vendors in favour of the other accused No.1.
14. Therefore, at this stage, by holding a mini-trial this Court cannot accept the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners that they are in no way connected with the alleged offences and thus, the petition needs to be dismissed.
15. Further, it is always open for the petitioner to canvass all defences available to them in the pending trial, in accordance with law.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:586 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2017 HC-KAR
16. Reserving such liberty, the following order:
ORDER The petition dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 14