Shri.Siddesh @ Sagar Irappa Kagatidesai Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100088 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI SIDDESH @ SAGAR IRAPPA KAGATIDESAI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MARGANAKOPPA - 591 115, TQ : KITTUR, DIST : BELAGAVI.

¶9

MS. ROOPA D/O. IRAPPA KAGATIDESAI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MARGANAKOPPA - 591 115, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶11

SMT. KASTURI W/O. IRAPPA KAGATIDESAI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: MARGANAKOPPA - 591 115, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI ABHISHEK C. PATIL, SRI AKSHAY A. KATTI AND SRI ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PSI MURGOD POLICE STATION, TALUKA: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTR,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶19

KUMARI.MANJULA D/O. IRANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MARGANAKOPPA - 591 115, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 14/11/2019 FILED BY THE MURGOD POLICE IN MURGOD P.S. CR.NO.173/2019 (CORRESPONDING CC NO.1429/2019) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECS.354, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SEC. 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL JMFC, SAUNDATTI AT SAUNDATTI, AS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 praying to quash the charge-sheet filed in Murgod Police Station Crime No.173/2019 pending in C.C. No.1429/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶29

504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) on the file of the learned I Additional JMFC, Saundatti.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶31

On the complaint of respondent No.2, a case came to be registered in Kittur Police Station Crime No.61/2019 against the petitioners and another for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The said FIR subsequently, came to be transferred to Murgod Police Station and a case in Crime No.173/2019 came to be registered. The Murgod Police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners and a

¶32

case came to be registered against the petitioners and another in CC No.1429/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of

¶33

IPC and it is pending on the file of the learned I Additional JMFC, Saundatti. The proceedings of the said criminal

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶36

case and the charge-sheet are sought to be quashed by

¶37

accused Nos.1 to 3 in this petition.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶39

contend that, respondent No.2 has also filed a complaint on 25.04.2017 against petitioner No.1 and two others and it came to be registered in Crime No.60/2019 at Kittur

¶40

Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The said complaint has been filed with regard to the incident which took place on 24.04.2019. He submits that, based on the incident dated 24.04.2019, respondent No.2 filed another complaint against the petitioners and another and Crime No.61/2019 has been registered in Kittur Police Station. He submits that, when there is already a complaint registered against petitioner No.1, second FIR is not tenable in law. He further submits that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 in Crime No.60/2019 in Kittur Police Station, there is no allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and now making allegations against petitioner Nos.2

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶42

and 3, one day later i.e. on 26.04.2019, itself indicate that the complaint is filed with an intention to falsely implicate petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are related to petitioner No.1. He further submits that earlier respondent No.2 had filed a complaint and a case has been registered in S.C. No.317/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 417 of IPC and in that case, petitioner No.1 has been acquitted. He further submits that respondent No.2 had earlier filed 3 more complaints against the petitioners and the police after investigation filed ‘B’ summary report and it had attained finality. All these indicate that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners is a false complaint. On these grounds, he prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶43

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶44

for respondent No.1 and the counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact of respondent No.2 filing a complaint and a case is registered in Crime No.60/2019

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶47

against petitioner No.1 and two others and there is no allegation against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the said complaint.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court

¶49

has perused the material placed on record.

¶50

7. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against

¶51

petitioner No.1 and two others on 25.04.2019 with regard to the incident dated 24.04.2019 and a case has been registered in Crime No.60/2019 by Kittur Police for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. On similar allegations contained in the complaint registered by Kittur Police Station, respondent No.2 has filed another compliant against the petitioners and another with regard to the same incident dated 24.04.2019. In the complaint registered in Crime No.60/2019 at Kittur Police Station, there is no allegation against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It appears that respondent No.2 having grudge against the petitioners, a false complaint has been filed against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. More so, the case

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶53

registered against petitioner No.1 in Crime No.61/2019 is a second FIR and it is not tenable in law. Moreover, respondent No.2 has filed 3 complaints against petitioner No.1 and accordingly, the police filed ‘B’ summary report. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said ‘B’ summary report and it has attained finality.

¶54

Considering all these aspects, it is clear that respondent No.2 in order to take revenge against the petitioners, a false complaint has been filed against them. Therefore, the proceedings registered against the petitioners requires to be quashed.

¶55

In the result, the following

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners arising out of Murgod Police Station Crime No.173/2019 (Kittur Police Station Crime No.60/2019) and the proceedings in CC No.1429/2019 pending on the file of

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4151 CRL.P No. 100088 of 2020

¶60

the learned I Additional JMFC, Saundatti are quashed so

¶61

far as the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned.

¶62

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶63

kmv CT-ASC

Shri.Siddesh @ Sagar Irappa Kagatidesai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Siddesh @ Sagar Irappa Kagatidesai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Income Tax Department Vs Smt.Bhaskara Subramanyam Jayashree

Sri N Chikkabyraiah Vs Sri Ningegowda

K.R. Venkatesh Murhty Vs Mr. Rajandavel

Shri.Siddesh @ Sagar Irappa Kagatidesai Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumar S/O Gurupadayya Misi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamant S/O Pandurang Bhajantri Vs State of Karnataka