Karnataka High Court
M/S. Mkh Trading Company vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750
CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102514 OF 2019
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MKH TRADING COMPANY,
BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. MOHAN HIREGOUDAR,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 5TH CROSS,
PANCHAXARI NAGAR, EXTENSION, GADAG-582101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH POLICE STATION, ANNIGERI P.S.
2. SHRI VENKATESH CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILE MILL
LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S HEMAREDDI S/O. VENKAPPA MADOLLI,
HARIHAR
Location: High
AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. ANNIGERI, DIST: GADAG,
Court of NOW AT K. H. PATIL GROUND NEAR,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench VENKATESHWAR NILAY, GADAG- 581213.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-DECEASED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, NAVALAGUND, AT NAVALAGUND
IN C.C. NO.422/2019, ARISING OUT OF ANNIGERI POLICE STATION
IN CRIME NO.94/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.191,
192, 196, 420, 467, 470 AND 471 OF IPC, AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN, WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750
CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Gangadhar S.Hosakeri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent - State.
2. The petitioner - accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.169/2015 arising out of P.C. No.13/2014, on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalagund, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 420, 467, 470 and 471 of IPC.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under; On 28.01.2011, accused No.1-Mohan Krishtagouda Hiregoudra was running Shree Venkateshwar Co-operative Textiles Mill on lease basis at Annigeri. However, he violated the lease condition. Thus, on 14.05.2011, in the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750 CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019 HC-KAR name of Ginning and Pressing Machines of the Mill, he created false documents in order to borrow loan from the State Bank of India, accused No.4/Charted Accountant certified the same as genuine documents and thus, accused No.1 submitted the forged documents before accused Nos.2 and 3, who are officials of SBI, Branch Gadag-Betageri. However, the documents submitted by accused No.1 were not properly verified by accused No.2. Thereby, they colluded with accused No.1 and even accused No.3 did not visit the Mill for inspection and granted loan amount of Rs.55,00,000/- on Ginning and Pressing Machines of the Mill. Thereby, accused persons have caused loss for a tune of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. Hence, the first informant lodged complaint, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.
4. Taking exception to the same, petitioner/accused filed this petition. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750 CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019 HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the alleged incident had taken place from 10.01.2011 till 30.10.2013, as per the allegation, accused No.1 in order to cheat the Bank created fake document as if he has been running a textile mill in his name and furnished the said fake documents to the SBI Bank, Gadag branch and borrowed loan from the said bank and the bank officials without properly perusing the documents submitted by accused No.1, sanctioned loan in favour of accused No.1, thereby cheated the bank.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and there is no material placed on record to attract the alleged offences. The charge-sheet material does not disclose the commission of alleged offences. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without any substance. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750 CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019 HC-KAR
7. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State contended that the charge-sheet materials clearly disclose the commission of aforesaid offences and the veracity of allegation against the petitioner/accused can be considered only after a full-fledged trial. Moreover, the present petition has been filed at the stage when the Court took cognizance and issued process, whereas the trial Court framed charges against the accused and now the matter is set-down for trial. At this juncture, the petition is not maintainable and once charge is framed, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is not maintainable. Hence, prayed for rejection of petition.
8. Perused the material available on record.
9. The alleged offence took place in between 10.01.2011 and 30.10.2013, but, complaint was lodged on 10.08.2014. As per the contents of charge-sheet, the accused cheated the complainant/Bank in order to borrow loan amount by creating forged instruments and used such -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750 CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019 HC-KAR instruments as genuine documents. From perusal of the material available on record, the Court issued process against accused persons and charge was not framed when this petition was filed. Now the charge has been framed and matter is set-down for trial. This aspect is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the framing of charges signifies that the Court, after perusing charge-sheet material, believes that there is sufficient reason to proceed with trial.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in several pronouncements held that once charges are framed and if the matter is set- down for trial, Courts must slow in quashing the criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, or the Court's generally reluctant to interfere with the trial process after charges have been framed, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, the accused disputing the question of fact. This Court cannot delve into disputed question of facts, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7750 CRL.P No. 102514 of 2019 HC-KAR matter is set-down for trial. Hence, there is no merit in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/ CT-AN.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19