Abhishek Prakash Ankad Vs State of Karnataka… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Abhishek Prakash Ankad Vs State of Karnataka… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.147/2021 on the file of the JMFC-IV Court, Belagavi, against the petitioner/accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner is disputing questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.; at this juncture only a prima facie case is to be seen, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2021 SC 1918).

Ratio / Principle

A criminal case can be quashed only on the ground that there is no mens rea and actus reus; whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of entering into the transaction is a question to be decided in a full-fledged trial, not at the Section 482 stage.

Key takeaways

Once a cognizable offence is found from the allegations made in the complaint or charge sheet, the Court has to proceed to trial as established under law; accordingly, there are no merits in this petition and it is dismissed.ratio¶¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Venkatesh Naik T, J., single judge) — Criminal Petition No. 100581 of 2024 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS), decided 7 July 2025: DISMISSED. Petitioner Abhishek Prakash Ankad, arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.No.147/2021 (JMFC-IV, Belagavi) for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC arising out of Tilakawadi P.S. Crime No.85/2017, sought quashing of proceedings on the ground that the fraud (Rs.18 lakhs taken by accused No.1 Abhishek Burji with promises of university appointments and use of fabricated appointment/deputation orders dated 02.01.2017) was wholly attributable to others, that he had been treated as a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before being implicated, and that his lack of mens rea/actus reus made trial an abuse of process. The Court held that disputed questions of fact, including dishonest intention at the inception, cannot be adjudicated under Section 482; only a prima facie assessment is required at the threshold, relying on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918; and once a cognizable offence is disclosed by the complaint/charge sheet, the trial must proceed. The observations were expressly confined to disposal of the petition and the trial Court was directed not to be influenced by them.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100581 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

ABHISHEK PRAKASH ANKAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR MARADIMATH, GULEDAGUDDA, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587203.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADV. FOR SRI. S. B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, (PERTAINING TO TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI).

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

SMT. K. GAYATHRI REDDY, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SPECIAL OFFICER AT VISHWESHWARAYYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL OFFICE, RHCS LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARY NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-56009.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 147/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC IV COURT BELAGAVI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 471, AND 420 OF IPC, ON THE COMPLAINT FILED IN TILAKAWADI P.S. BELAGAVI IN CR. NO.85/2017 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND ETC.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for

Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Kirtilata, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de-facto

complainant.

The petitioner has filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.147/2021 on the file of the JMFC-IV

Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’), insofar as petitioners-accused No.2.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

The de facto complainant lodged a complaint

with the respondent-Police alleging that during May 2016, near Ajanta Hotel, accused No.1-Abhishek Burji, received an amount of Rs.18 lakhs on the assurance that he would get an appointment to accused No.2, and also assured that he would get an appointments to CWs.9 to 11 in the Vishweshwarayya Technological University by preparing fabricated documents of appointment order and deputation orders thereby, accused No.2 submitted his appointment and deputation order dated 02.01.2017 to the concerned authorities, thereby the accused persons have cheated and fabricated the documents and used the fabricated documents as genuine documents.

Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint.

This led to registration of FIR and investigation. In turn, Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the accused persons. Taking exception to the same, petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are illegal and liable to be set aside, and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients of offences alleged against the

petitioner/accused are not made out, much less the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Further, the petitioner was treated as a witness and hence, his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C and later, he has been falsely implicated as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. There are no incriminating evidence against the petitioner.

It is further contended that accused No.1Abhishek Burji, Sunitha Ghorpade and Sanganabasappa Bankapur, who are working in the State intelligence Wing have committed the offence, and the case against them should have been proceeded with.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

On the other hand, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.2, who is a victim of the fraud, being innocent, has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the investigation does not disclose that the petitioner, with the full knowledge that the documents, he was carrying were forged and with intention to cheat anybody acted in pursuance thereof, by reporting for duty. Hence, in the absence of mens-rea and actus-rea, he cannot be compelled to face the trial, which would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence he prayed to allow the petition.

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 de facto complainant vehemently contended that accused No.2 is the beneficiary under the entire transaction, who paid bribe to accused No.1, whether he has paid the bribe or his family members paid such bribe to accused No.1, is a mater of trial. The petitioner is now disputing the question of fact which cannot be gone under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

Perused the material available on record and as

per the prosecution’s case, this petitioner involved in the case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC, which read as follows:

“465. Punishment for forgery

Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

468. Forgery for purpose of cheating

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

471. Using as genuine a forged document

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

In the instant case, petitioner/accused No.2 has

taken contention that he has not involved in this case. In

fact, the entire allegation is against petitioner No.1 only and there is absence of mens-rea and actus-rea, so as to connect petitioner in the case.

In the instant case, the petitioner is disputing question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At this juncture, only prima facie case is to be seen in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹ .

Further, criminal case can be quashed only on the ground that, there is no mens-rea and actus-rea. Whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of entering into the contract, said question has to be decided

1 AIR 2021 SC 1918

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8437 CRL.P No. 100581 of 2024

HC-KAR

in a full fledged trial. Once the cognizable offence is found,

the allegations made in the complaint or charge sheet, Court has to conduct mock/trial in the manner as per established under law. Hence, there are no merits in this petition. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal petition is dismissed .

Note:- The above observations are made only for the

purpose of disposal of this petition and trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order.

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T)

JUDGE

AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17