Karnataka High Court
Vittal Ramappa Malagimani vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101442 OF 2019 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101869 OF 2019 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101442 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. VITTAL RAMAPPA MALAGIMANI,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: RTD. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICE FCI,
R/O: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
2. DR. KRISHNAPPA BHIKKAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: RTD. DISTRICT SURGEON,
R/O. BELADADI TANDA, TQ. & DIST. GADAG,
NOW R/O: KRIPA NURSING HOME, KHB COLONY,
SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
VINAYAKA
BV
3. SHANTA VITTAL MALAGIMANI,
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.15 10:16:54
+0530 R/O: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
4. SMT. KAMALA @ KAMALAVVA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELADADI TANDA, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG.
NOW R/O: KRIPA NURSING HOME, KHB COLONY,
SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, R.L. SHEELVANT
AND M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION.
2. SHANTAWWA W/O KUBERAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: A/P: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES FOR R2;
SRI. PRAVEEN UPPER, A.G.A. FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.
618/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC-II COURT AT GADAG, REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 323, 354, 504, 506
R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY &
ETC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101869 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. KUBERAPPA S/O BHIKKAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
2. GURURAJ S/O KUBERAPPA PAWAR,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. RAVIRAJ S/O KUBERAPPA PAWAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR AND K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. VITTHAL S/O RAMAPPA MALAGIMANI,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER,
R/O BELADADI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPER, A.G.A. FOR R1;
SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT AND M.L. VANTI,
ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.303/2018 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.527/2019 ON THE
FIEE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II COURT, GADAG,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
448, 323, 354, 504 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583
CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Since the parties in both these criminal petitions are one and the same and FIRs have been registered at the instance of both the sides against each other, these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIRs registered against both the parties and to quash all further proceedings thereto.
3. It is not disputed that the parties are related to each other. It is also not disputed that petitioners No.1 and 2 in Crl. P. No. 101442/2019 are residing in a house constructed by the husband of respondent No.2. It is clarified that petitioner No.2 is a Doctor who is residing at Sirsi and his native place is Beladadi Tandi and he had come to his native place a few days prior to the incident, -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR for attending Jatra. But it is a fact that the second petitioner came and stayed in the residence of petitioner No.1, which was a building, admittedly constructed by the husband of the second respondent who is incidentally the co-brother of petitioner No.1. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.1 has filed suits in O.S. No. 37/2024 and O.S. No. 384/2024 against the second respondent and her family members. One suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,75,000/- and the other suit is for injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property where admittedly petitioner No.1 is residing. It is also not disputed that the second respondent along with her family members has also filed a suit O.S. No. 165/2024 for injunction.
4. On the basis of the material available on record it is clear that an FIR was registered on 22.10.2018 at about 8:15 p.m. by petitioner No.1 against the husband and sons of the second respondent herein. The complaint talks of an incident stated to have taken place the previous day, -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR viz., 21.10.2018, in the residence of the first petitioner. The next day, viz., on 23.10.2018, an FIR is registered at the behest of respondent No.2 herein in respect of an incident said to have occurred previous day, viz., on 22.10.2018, at about 10.00 a.m.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both the sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that a civil dispute between the parties is sought to be converted into criminal proceedings. The petitioners herein are aged between 70 to 78. Moreover during the course of these proceedings petitioners No.3 and 4 have died. The civil dispute between the parties is that petitioner No.1 has made various payments commencing from the year 1971 to 2017. It is his contention that the second respondent owes the 1st petitioner a sum of Rs.28,75,000/-. However, learned counsel for the second respondent has pointed out to the statement filed along with the plaint in O.S. No. 32/2024 that even according to the plaintiff, he paid to the husband -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR of the second respondent herein, various amount between 1971 to 2017. The learned counsel would therefore submit that it is clear from the said statement that the claim is time barred. Nevertheless, there are certain other transactions between the parties and the fact that petitioner No.1 was admittedly permitted to reside in the house of the second respondent and her husband shows that the parties have, by their conduct, adjusted the money earlier lent by the 1st petitioner by permitting him to stay in the house of the second respondent. It is therefore the contention of the second respondent that she or her husband do not owe any money to the first petitioner. On the other hand the second respondent and her husband are now seeking to evict the first petitioner from the house. It also seems that the first petitioner is trying to demolish the said house and construct his own house in the adjoining premises.
6. Having regard to all these incidents and facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that civil dispute -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR between the parties are sought to be converted into criminal litigation. With this background, when the Court looks into the complaint lodged by both the parties and the allegations regarding the wounds suffered, and having regard to the wound certificates, this Court finds only minor abrasions and bruises. First petitioner was aged about 70 years and the second petitioner is aged about 78 years when they filed the petition in the year 2019. Now both of them are aged 76 and 84. On the other hand, petitioners in the connected criminal petition, though are of lesser age when compared to the petitioners in the first petition, nevertheless the first petitioner who is the co- brother of the first petitioner in the other matter is also aged about 65 years.
7. Learned counsel for the second respondent and the petitioner in the connected petition is right in his submission while pointing out to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR 1433/2024 dated 07.03.2024, where the Apex Court noticed another decision in the case of Paramjeet Bara V. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2069/2012) where it was held that, 'a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court'.
8. Similarly, in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others1, the Apex Court held that 'it is necessary to take note of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal case. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/ creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family 1 (2006) 6 SCC 736
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/ families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged'. In the same judgment the Apex Court also noticed a earlier decision in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] where it was held as follows:
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process, a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR
9. Having regard to the exposition of the position of law, which guide this Court while considering such cases, under Section 482 of the CrP.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that both the criminal prosecutions have to be set aside while quashing the two FIRs.
10. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Both the criminal petitions are allowed.
Consequently, Crime No. 305/2018 registered in Gadag Rural Police registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 448, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II Court, Gadag in C.C. No. 618/2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. So also, Crime No. 303/2018 registered in Gadag Rural Police registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 448, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8583 CRL.P No. 101442 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 101869 of 2019 HC-KAR and JMFC-II Court, Gadag in C.C. No. 527/2019, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2