Karnataka High Court
Vijay Kumar S/O Noorandappa Kavalur vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:122
CRL.P No. 102908 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102908 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
VIJAY KUMAR
S/O NOORANDAPPA KAVALUR,
AGED 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND BUSINESS, R/O: KAVALUR ONI,
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MRUTYUNJAY 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-580 011.
2. SHIVKUMAR S/O BASAPPA KUKANUR,
Digitally signed by B
K
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: LECTURE,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
R/O: SIDDESHWAR CIRCLE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
NANDI NAGAR ROAD, KOPPAL,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.01.21 TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.
05:54:16 +0530
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(NOC);
SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
FIR, COMPLAINT AND THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN S.C. NO.32/2019
(KOPPAL TOWN POLICE CRIME NO.107/2017) FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES U/S 201, 489C, 182, 489D, 120B, 149 AND 489A OF IPC
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:122
CRL.P No. 102908 of 2022
IN SO FAR THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner/accused No.1, who has been charge- sheeted for offenses punishable under Sections 120B, 182, 489A, 489B, and 489C, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court.
2. Respondent No.2 has lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the petitioner, 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 this, the present petition has been filed.
3. Sri C.V. Nagesh, the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, argued that, except for the self-serving statement of Respondent No.2 (the defacto complainant) and the confession statement of the co-accused, there is no corroborative material to substantiate that the petitioner planted counterfeit notes and a printing machine in Respondent No.2's house.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:122 CRL.P No. 102908 of 2022
4. He further submitted that the Police Sub-Inspector of the jurisdictional police station gave a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., stating that, on receiving credible information, the police visited the house of the complainant and found that Respondent No.2 was in possession of counterfeit notes and a printing machine. The same were seized, and the FIR was lodged by Respondent No.2. He further contended that the offenses alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and, therefore, the conducting of a raid before registration of the FIR is impermissible in law. Additionally, he argued that the information was not recorded in the Station House Diary as required.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that the charge sheet witnesses have categorically stated that the petitioner was found roaming near the house of the complainant. Additionally, the co-accused have voluntarily stated that they conspired with the petitioner to falsely implicate Respondent No.2. Therefore, they argued, the veracity of these allegations can only be assessed at the time of trial, and this issue cannot be adjudicated at this stage in the petition.
6. They further argued that the petitioner, without exhausting the alternative remedy by filing an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has filed this petition, which is not maintainable.
7. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for both parties, the following observations are made:
-4-NC: 2025:KHC-D:122 CRL.P No. 102908 of 2022
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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:122 CRL.P No. 102908 of 2022 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.
10. Therefore, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent seizure of the material objects stand vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
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 petitioner/accused No.1 is quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24