Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh Chichkote vs State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10506
CRL.P No. 9283 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9283 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMESH CHICHKOTE
S/O MOHAN CHICHKOTE,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT GDA LAYOUT,
NEAR MANIKESHWARI TEMPLE,
SHAIKH ROJA, KALABURAGI-585103
WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATOR,
SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE,
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANDEESWAR D.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
R HEMALATHA BANGALORE-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. REV SEBESTIAN RAVIKUMAR
KARNATAKA
S/O G RAJAPPA GERSHEM,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
THE METHODIST CHURCH IN INDIA,
NO.13, CONVENT ROAD,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C 1973 (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10506
CRL.P No. 9283 of 2024
COMPLAINT IN CC.NO.60935/2024, PENDING IN THE COURT OF
XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL
COURT AT BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 419, 420
AND R/W 34 OF IPC IN CRIME NO.16/2024 OF ASHOK NAGAR
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR
THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner--accused No. 9, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC--is before this Court seeking relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that, in conspiracy with the other accused, the petitioner impersonated the Bishop and other office bearers of the Church and executed a registered sale deed in favor of Nazeer Ahmad, Ambarish, and Mashek Patel, in relation to a property belonging to the Church. Specifically, it is alleged that at the time of the registration of the sale deed, the petitioner, while working as a data operator, uploaded photographs of the parties to the sale deed on the computer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 9 submitted that, as a data operator, the petitioner is not under an obligation to verify the genuineness of the documents submitted by the parties to the sale deed, nor the contents of the sale deed itself. In the absence of any material evidence to substantiate that he connived with the other accused in impersonating the Bishop and the office bearers of the Church, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:10506 CRL.P No. 9283 of 2024 the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
4. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the charge sheet clearly establishes that the petitioner-accused No. 9 conspired with the other accused in impersonating the Bishop and the office bearers of the Church and in executing the registered sale deed in favor of third parties. He further contended that the veracity of these allegations must be considered at trial and that such matters cannot be decided in this petition, and therefore sought the dismissal of the petition.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.9, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 (State), and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 were heard.
7. The Court finds that the allegation of conspiracy to impersonate the Bishop and the office bearers of the Church is directed against the other accused, and not against the petitioner-accused No. 9, whose role was limited to uploading photographs of the parties to the sale deed on the computer. The petitioner-accused No. 9, as a data operator, is not obligated to verify the genuineness of the documents submitted by the parties. Furthermore, he has produced a list of his -4- NC: 2025:KHC:10506 CRL.P No. 9283 of 2024 duties, which include document summary printing, document scanning, document endorsement, receipt and thumb register printing, and annexure scanning, as performed at the Sub- Registrar's office. In the absence of any substantive evidence establishing that the petitioner-accused No. 9 connived with the other accused in impersonating and executing the registered sale deed, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
9. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 60935/2024, on the file of the 29th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, insofar as they relate to accused No. 9, are hereby quashed.
10. The Trial Court is directed to proceed against the other accused in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order, which are rendered solely for the purpose of the present petition.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92