This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet for cheating (Section 420 IPC) was dismissed as it lacked merit. The Court noted admitted transactions regarding silver oak trees prevented quashing the case outright but directed the petitioner to seek discharge in the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7158 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.D. VEERAPPA S/O. DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SRI.RAMA COMPLEX, CLUB ROAD SOMWARPET 571 236 KODAGU DISTRICT
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREENIDHI L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATISH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JMFC (II) COURT SHIVAMOGGA NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.726/2018, REGISTERED AT DODDAPETE
NC: 2023:KHC:38625 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2018
POLICE STATION, UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC AT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him by respondent No.1 in CC No.726/2018 pending trial before the II JMFC at Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC.
returned. He alleged that the accused had informed him about the business in silver oak trees and that the respondent No.2 evinced interest in the business and partnered with the petitioner who allegedly caused loss to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/-. He alleged that since he was a resident of Shivamogga which was 400 to 500 kilometers from Somawarpet, he, in good faith believed that the petitioner would repay the sum of Rs.70,00,000/- He alleged that the petitioner had kept all the original documents and cheated him. He alleged that petitioner did not return the blank cheques and promissory notes but, used them to lodge a case at Somawarpet. He claimed that when he confronted the petitioner, he was threatened. He claimed that he was not liable to pay any money to the petitioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:38625 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2018
sheet and held that there was sufficient material to proceed with the case and thus, registered C.C. No.726/2018 and issued process. The summary of the charge sheet was that the respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement with CW.6 to remove the silver oak trees in the land of CW.6. That the petitioner and other accused had transported 53 truck loads of silver oak trees by paying a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondent No.2 but, did not pay a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- and hence, cheated the respondent No.2.
offences. He submits that as a counterblast, respondent No.2 has lodged a false case against the petitioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:38625 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2018
therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission.
counsel for the petitioner as well the learned High Court Government Pleader.
NC: 2023:KHC:38625 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2018
Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner. He also stated that the petitioner did remove the trees valued at Rs.70,00,000/- but, did not pay the balance amount of Rs.55,00,000/- to respondent No.2 and that the petitioner was dodging the payment to respondent No.2. Therefore, there are traces of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
Sd/JUDGE
SK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the charge sheet in a criminal prosecution for cheating where the dispute relates to a genuine transaction regarding removal of silver oak trees.
Whether the petitioner can seek discharge in the trial court after the quashing petition is dismissed due to lack of merit.
Whether the admitted transaction between the parties precludes the High Court from determining the petitioner's innocence at this stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. K.D. Veerappa
The State of Karnataka
Sanaulla Khan
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
