Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

NC: 2025:KHC-K:960 AND 3 OTHERS THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Petitioners herein, who are accused in Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017 registered by Chadachan Police Station, Vijayapura for the offences punishable under Sections 116, 166, 167 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 2(1)(k), 29(b), 3(1), 25(1B)(a), 26(1), 29(b) and 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), are before this Court in these six petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid three cases registered against them.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations found in the charge sheet against the petitioners are presumed to be true, the offences punishable under NC: 2025:KHC-K:960 AND 3 OTHERS Sections 166 and 167 of IPC do not prima facie get attracted.

On the other hand, offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC ought to have been invoked. Since, the said offence is covered under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., deliberately the said offence is not invoked in the charge sheet filed in the present case. He submits that petitioners are Police Officers and therefore, sanction as provided under Section 197 of Cr.PC. ought to have been obtained and in the absence of such sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC., petitioners cannot be prosecuted. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BASIR- UL-HUQ AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - (1953) 1 SCC 637.

8. The impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR registered in Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017 registered by Chadachan Police Station, Vijayapura, was registered by accused/Gopal Hallur in his capacity as Police Sub-Inspector of Chadachan Police Station against CW52 to CW57 in Crime No.171/2017. The allegation in the charge sheet filed in Crime No.172/2017, Crime

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:960 AND 3 OTHERS No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017 registered by Chadachan Police Station against the petitioners herein is that false cases was initially registered against CW 52 to CW57 in the aforesaid three criminal cases, on the basis of the first information given by persons who were setup by the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. The allegation in the FIR was that deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan and his accomplices had barged into the house of first informant in the aforesaid three cases and had forcibly taken the firearms which were the subject matter of these three crimes. The said firearms were subsequently planted at the spot of crime in Crime No.171/2017 by Gopal Hallur and an attempt was made to create false evidence against deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan and also to falsely implicate his accomplices, in the aforesaid three cases namely, Crime No.172/2017, Crime No.174/2017 and Crime No. 181/2017. It is only after the role played by the petitioners in the murder of Dharmaraj Chadachana and his brother Gangadhar Chadachana was revealed during the course of investigation in Crime No.171/2017 and Crime No.92/2018, it appears that their role in registering false criminal cases in

NC: 2025:KHC-K:960 AND 3 OTHERS

14. In the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. ARYAN SINGH AND OTHERS - 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 379, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.10 has observed as follows:

"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against