Dismissed¶66

Shri Channabasappa S/O Gavisiddappa Mathur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2025CRL.P/102057/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings refused despite pending civil dispute — S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS petition dismissed; offences under IPC ss.143, 147, 447, 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 149 (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, outrage of modesty, unlawful assembly); civil suit O.S.65/1995 no bar to criminal trial; relied on Kamaladevi Agarwal (2002) 1 SCC 555 and Kathyayini (2025 INSC 818); prima facie case, wound certificate, grievous/fracture injuries; trial commenced 2023; Koppal Rural PS; C.C. No.939/2022.

What did the court decide?

Mere pendency of civil disputes between the parties is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings where the material on record clearly makes out a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged offences; the principle in Kamaladevi Agarwal and Kathyayini applies. ¶66

Shri Channabasappa S/O Gavisiddappa Mathur Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.939/2022 arising out of Crime No.08/2022 should be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS on the ground that they stem from a civil dispute between the parties and were initiated to coerce and harass the petitioners.

¶41

Court's answer

¶66

Ratio / Principle

No good ground was found to entertain the petition; the material (including the charge sheet invoking S.326 IPC, wound certificates showing grievous/fracture injuries to two victims, and the cited doctor witness) disclosed a prima facie case and the trial had already commenced in 2023.

¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) by Accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking quashing of the complaint/FIR and entire proceedings in C.C. No.939/2022 (Crime No.08/2022, Koppal Rural Police Station, offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 324, 326, 354, 504 and 149 IPC) before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal — Dismissed. The FIR arose from a first information dated 08.01.2022 by Basavaraj, an injured victim; the charge sheet additionally invokes S.326 IPC, and wound certificates show two victims (Gangamma and Shivappa) suffered grievous/fracture injuries while the informant suffered simple injuries, with the treating doctor cited as a charge sheet witness. Held: pendency of civil disputes between the parties (petitioners' counsel relying on a decree in O.S. No.65 of 1995, stated to be pending before the Supreme Court) is no ground to quash criminal proceedings where the record makes out a prima facie case; following Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 1 SCC 555 (para 17), reiterated in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 INSC 818 (para 23). Trial having commenced in 2023, no good ground existed to entertain the petition; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102057 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI CHANNABASAPPA S/O GAVISIDDAPPA MATHUR, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR TERAPANTI BHAVAN, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.

¶10

SHRI SHARANAPPA

¶11

S/O GAVISIDDAPPA MATHUR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR TERAPANTI BHAVAN, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.

¶12

Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
SHARIHAR Location:HIGHCOURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH

¶13

SHRI BALAPPA @ AJJAPPA S/O GAVISIDDAPPA MATHUR, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR TERAPANTI BHAVAN, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.

¶14

SHIVAMMA W/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NEAR TERAPANTI BHAVAN, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.

¶15

PADMAVATHI W/O GAVISIDDAPPA MATHUR D/O CHANNABASAPPA MATHUR, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NEAR TERAPANTI BHAVAN, KOPPAL,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.

¶20

SHRI RUDRAGOUDA S/O GURUBASAVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR TERAPANTI BHAVAN, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231

¶21

… PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION, PIN-583 231.

¶25

SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O GAVISHIDDAPPA KABBER, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAHADDUR BANDI VILLAGE, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.

¶26

… RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT/FIR AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.939/2022 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. KOPPAL ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.08/2022 REGISTERED BEFORE KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 447, 323, 324, 326, 354, 504 AND 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶34

Accused Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in C.C. No.939 of 2022 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, arising out of Crime No.8 of 2022 registered by Koppal Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 324, 326, 354, 504 and 149 of the IPC,

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No. 1.

¶36

FIR in the present case was registered initially for offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 324, 354, 504 and 149 of the IPC against the petitioners herein based on the first information dated 08.01.2022 from Basavaraj, who is one of the injured victim in the present case. After completing investigation charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences and the trial Court after taking

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

cognizance of the charge sheeted offences has issued summons to the accused. Assailing the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties and only for the said reason, a false complaint has been filed against the petitioners. He submits that a suit which was filed in O.S. No.65 of 1995 was decreed in favour of the petitioners and the matter is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The contesting respondents, who have suffered an

¶42

order before the Civil Court, have initiated the impugned criminal proceedings only to coerce and to harass the petitioners.

¶43

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that though initially FIR was filed against the accused by invoking the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC, after completing

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

investigation, charge sheet is now filed against the accused invoking Section 326 of the IPC, which would prima facie go to show that the injured victims have suffered grievous injuries in the incident in question. She submits that the wound certificate of the victim would go to show that the injuries suffered in the present case are grievous and the Doctor who has treated the victim is also cited as a charge sheet witness in the present case. Merely for the reason that there is a civil dispute between the parties, there is no bar to register the criminal case against the accused. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶47

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the incident in question had taken place on 08.01.2022 at about 12.40 hours and the first informant had approached the Police on the very same day at about 19.30 hours. There is an allegation against the petitioners herein about abusing and assaulting the first informant and other victims with a wooden club. It is also alleged that the first informant had suffered bite injuries on his body. In the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

incident in question, it is alleged that accused persons have outraged the modesty of Gangamma, who is one of the victims in the present case. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case for the aforesaid offences. In the charge sheet, offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC has been invoked. The offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC is punishable with life imprisonment. The wound certificate of Gangamma and other victims in the present case would go to show that two of the victims have suffered grievous injuries in the incident in question and the first informant has suffered simple injuries. Gangamma and Shivappa have suffered fracture injuries in the incident in question, which is supported by the medical documents and the doctor who has treated the injured victim is also cited as a charge sheet witness in the present case.

¶52

Perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court would go to show that the trial in the case has already commenced in the year 2023 itself. The Hon'ble Supreme

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Court in the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others¹ at paragraph No.17 has observed as follows:

¶57

“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”

¶58

The principle laid down in the case of

¶59

Kamaladevi Agarwal (supra) has been reiterated in the case of Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & others² , wherein at paragraph No. 23 has observed as follows;

¶60

1 (2002) 1 SCC 555

¶61

2 2025 INSC 818

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11447 CRL.P No. 102057 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

“23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.”

¶66

Merely for the reason that there are certain civil disputes pending between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to quash the impugned criminal proceedings, if the material on record would clearly make out a prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offences. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶67

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶68

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶69

VNP / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36

Shri Channabasappa S/O Gavisiddappa Mathur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Channabasappa S/O Gavisiddappa Mathur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaleem Pasha S/O Abdul Basith Vs Sri Imam Hussain Alias Basha Bhai

Shri M Shivamurthy S/O. Manjunath M Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakkappa S/O Laxman Betageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O Prahlad Kalaburgi Vs State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Alias Raju S/O. Vasantrao Desai, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kusuma Vs the State of Karnataka