Dismissed¶¶61

Shivagouda Basagouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2025CRL.P/101922/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/complaint; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Section 137(2) BNS kidnapping; Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 140, 238, 61(2) r/w 190 BNS; Section 103(2) BNS murder; addition of major offences during investigation; prima facie material; disputed questions of fact; plea of alibi to be taken at trial; maintainability of quashing petition; advocates as accused; alleged supari deal Rs.14 lakh; interim protection from coercive steps dated 15-05-2025; Original Suit No.21 of 2025; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; CRL.P No.101922 of 2025; decided 01-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into in a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ¶¶57

Shivagouda Basagouda Patil Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the complaint and FIR in Crime No.123/2025 (Section 137(2) BNS) is maintainable, in view of the major offences including murder incorporated by the Investigating Officer during investigation. +1 more

¶¶61

Court's answer

The Investigating Officer has to conduct investigation for the major offence under Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners, and recovery has to be made in accordance with law.

¶¶60

Ratio / Principle

Disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into in a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

The plea of alibi (that the petitioners were engaged in Court at the time of the alleged offence) cannot be taken at this juncture; it has to be taken during the course of trial.ratio¶¶60
From the Investigation Report there is prima facie material against the petitioners for their involvement in the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 140, 238 and 61(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including commission of murder.ratio¶¶56
In view of the major offences registered by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and others, the petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS for quashing the complaint and FIR in Raibag Police Station Crime No.0123/2025 u/S.137(2) BNS 2023, filed by the wife alleging kidnapping of her husband (an advocate) on 29-04-2025 amid a property dispute (O.S. No.21/2025): during investigation the husband was found murdered; the Investigating Officer added offences u/Ss.189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 140, 238 and 61(2) r/w S.190 BNS and reported prima facie material against the petitioner-advocates, including alleged engagement of supari killers for Rs.14.00 lakh. Held: disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into u/S.482 CrPC; the plea of alibi cannot be taken at this juncture and must be raised at trial; investigation u/S.103(2) BNS and recovery to proceed in accordance with law. Petition not maintainable — dismissed. (High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, 01-07-2025 — Venkatesh Naik T, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101922 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SHIVAGOUDA BASAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. BASTAWAD, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶11

BHARATESH KOLI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. BASTAWAD, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SHRI V. M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI RAIBAG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶16

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

¶17

SMT. REKHA W/O. SANTOSH PATIL, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. R/O. SAVASUDDI, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED IN RAIBAG POLICE STATION CRIME NO.0123/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, RAIBAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 137(2) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CAV ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶26

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section

¶27

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), praying to quash the complaint and First Information Report registered in Crime No.123 of 2025 of Raibag Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Raibag, for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶28

The case of the petitioners is that the SubInspector of Police, Raibag Police Station, registered a case for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2/ de facto complainant. In the complaint, it is alleged that the husband of the complainant is a practicing Advocate at Raibag Court. On 29-4-2025, at around 10:48 a.m., one Lakappa Bidri called the complainant and informed that

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-23 EU 1541, and mobile bag belonging to her husband, were fallen on the Raibag-Backward Road, near Sahu Park Bus stand. Immediately, the complainant rushed to the spot and thereafter, she lodged the complaint alleging that her husband's deceased brother, Laxman, and Shivagouda Basagouda Patil (petitioner No.1) were practicing Law together from 2015 to 2021. The deceased Laxman was having certain properties and those properties were transferred to the name of petitioner No.1. In that regard, conciliation was going on between petitioner No.1 and the husband of the complainant. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant was not ready to give the properties to petitioner No.1 on the premise that the properties were earned by his brother deceased Laxman. In this regard, the husband of the complainant also filed a suit in Original Suit No.21 of 2025 against petitioner No.1 for relief of declaration and injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Raibag. Thereafter, petitioner No.1

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

developed ill-will with the husband of the complainant and started threatening her husband with dire consequences and was asking him to withdraw the suit. On 29-4-2025, at 10:00 a.m., when her husband was proceeding to the Court, the petitioners and others have kidnapped her husband. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioners and others.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are practicing Advocates in Raibag Courts and having good names and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are not at all involved in the alleged offence. The entire allegation in the complaint is only on the basis of assumption and presumptions without there being any base.

¶36

Learned counsel has further contended that on perusing the complaint averments, it is specific allegation of the complainant that on 29-4-2025, the petitioners have kidnapped her husband. In fact, on the day of

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

alleged incident, they were in Court and have appeared, conducted matters before the trial Court and got settled the cases on the very same date. On perusal of the complaint averments clearly establishes that the complainant is trying to give colour of criminal to the civil dispute and the complaint is filed with an intention to harass the petitioners. The entire averments in the complaint do not make out an offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶40

Learned counsel has further contended that,

¶41

this Court on 15-5-2025, while granting stay in the matter, observed that " the investigation shall proceed in accordance with law. However, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners during the course of investigation. It is made clear that this order restraining coercive action shall not impede the Investigation Officer from conducting a full and fair investigation, including all necessary steps to trace the missing person, in accordance with law ." Hence, he contended that the petitioners have

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

protection order in the matter and the Investigating Officer may proceed investigation in accordance with law. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State has contended that the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the complaint and First Information Report for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. However, the petition is not maintainable as the husband of the complainant, by name Santosh Patil, was murdered. Hence, the Investigating Officer incorporated the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 140, 238 and 61(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶46

In this regard, the Court secured the latest investigation report from the Investigating Officer. From perusal of the Investigation Report, it reveals that, apart

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

from petitioner Nos.1 and 2, there are other eight accused persons involved in this case for kidnapping the deceased, Santosh Patil, near Sahu Park, when he was coming from Backward Road towards Raibag Court. Accused Nos.5 to 10 kidnapped him in Tata Zest car, took him to Forest area

¶50

of Ganesh Gudi Village near Ramanagara, committed murder and burnt the dead body in the said Forest area. Further, during the course of investigation, it revealed that the petitioners engaged supari killers, by name, Suresha Bheemappa Nandi (accused No.5) and Manjunatha Basavaraja Talavar (accused No.9) and settled deal for Rs.14.00 lakh to eliminate the husband of the deceased, Santosh Patil. Accordingly, on 29-4-2025, accused No.5Suresha Bheemappa Nandi, accused No.6-Udaya Bheemappa Mushennawara, accused No.7-Sanjayakumara Yellappa Halabannavara, accused No.8-Ramu Bheemappa Dandapure, accused No.9-Manjunatha Basavaraja Talavar, and accused No.10-Nagaraja Parasappa Nayaka came to Raibag at Sahu Park, where they kidnapped Santosh Patil

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

in car, took him to Ganesh Gudi Forest and committed

¶55

murder and burnt the dead body of Santosh Patil. Hence, the Investigating Officer has opined that the petitioners are involved in commission of murder of the husband of the complainant, Santosh Patil.

¶56

From the Investigation Report, there is primafacie material against the petitioners for their involvement in the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 140, 238 and 61(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Whereas, the petitioners have sought for quashing First Information Report registered for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Now, the Investigating Officer included other offences, including the offence of commission of murder, against the petitioners.

¶57

The petitioners are now disputing the question of fact which cannot be gone into under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the petitioners

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8255 CRL.P No. 101922 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

have taken contention that, at the time of the alleged offence, they were engaged in Court and hence, they have taken the plea of alibi. Such plea cannot be taken at this juncture, as it has to be taken during the course of trial. In this case, the Investigating Officer has to conduct investigation for the major offence under Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioners and recovery has to be made in accordance with law.

¶61

In view of major offences registered by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and others, the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶62

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶63

KVK / CT-AN

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Shivagouda Basagouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivagouda Basagouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Manjunath S/O Chandappa Marewad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Honnur Mastal Ali S/O Late Yusuf Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y Ravikumar S/O Y Leela Prasad Vs Sri D Noor Sab S/O. D. Mohammed Sab

Sri. Sunil S/O. Basavaraj Sutar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ladalya Ram Bhosale, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Maruti Alias Maruteppa S/O. Shivappa Bochanahalli Vs State of Karnataka