Sri. Tikke Nayak S/O. Shivappa Rudramani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025CRL.P/102115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; Venkatesh Naik T, J.; CRL.P No.102115 of 2024, decided 10.07.2025. Keywords: quashing of cognizance; demonetized currency notes; Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 Sections 5 and 7; cheating Section 420 IPC; Sections 511, 120B IPC; non-cognizable offence; investigation without Magistrate's permission Section 155(2) CrPC; abuse of process of law; parity with co-ordinate bench stay in Crl.P.No.103744/2024; petition allowed, proceedings quashed qua accused No.4.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C. No.36/2021 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner – accused No.4; pending I.A.s disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶order

Sri. Tikke Nayak S/O. Shivappa Rudramani Vs the State… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶order

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.02.2021 taking cognizance against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.36/2021 (Crime No.133/2020) for offences under Sections 420, 511, 120B IPC and Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 amounts to an abuse of the process of law; since the co-ordinate bench has already stayed the entire proceedings against accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.103744/2024, the case against accused No.4 is also liable to be quashed.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

There is no allegation that the petitioner induced anyone to part with property or currency notes with an intention to cheat; the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC being absent, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for that offence lacks merit.

¶5

Key takeaways

Contravention of Section 5 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 is punishable with a fine and is a non-cognizable offence; the police conducted the investigation without obtaining the mandatory permission under Section 155(2) CrPC, rendering the investigation invalid.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS, 2023) — quashing of cognizance order dated 23.02.2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal in C.C.No.36/2021 (Crime No.133/2020) for offences u/S.420, 511, 120B IPC and S.7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 qua petitioner/accused No.4 — Held: (i) ingredients of S.420 IPC require inducement to part with property with intent to cheat at inception; no such allegation against petitioner, hence cognizance for that offence lacks merit; (ii) contravention of S.5 of the SBN Act is punishable with fine and non-cognizable; police investigated without the mandatory permission u/S.155(2) CrPC, rendering the investigation invalid; (iii) continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law; co-ordinate bench had already stayed proceedings against accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.103744/2024 — Petition allowed; proceedings quashed insofar as they relate to accused No.4; pending I.As disposed of as not surviving. (Venkatesh Naik T, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102115 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. TIKKE NAYAK S/O. SHIVAPPA RUDRAMANI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNIKER TANDA VILLAGE-583231, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, AND SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶15

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

¶16

SRI. MARUTI GULLARI, P.I., AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: POLICE OFFICER, R/O. P. I. KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, KOPPAL CITY-583231.

¶17

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KOPPAL IN C.C. NO.36/2021 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.420, 511, 120B OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF SPECIFIED BANK NOTES (CESSATION OF LIABILITIES) ACT, 2017 IN CRIME NO.133/2020 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard Shri Hanumesh M.Desai., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Malipatil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

¶27

The petitioner – accused No.4 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., [Section 528 of BNSS, 2023], with the following prayer:

¶28

“Wherefore, petitioner/accused no-4 most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Order dated: 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM - Koppal in C.C.No.36/2021 thereby taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 420, 511, 120B, of IPC and Section 7 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 in Crime No.133/2020 as against the petitioner/accused No.4 and allow the above Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto

¶30

complainant received credible information that certain individuals were in possession of demonetized currency

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

notes, which had been invalidated by the Government’s notification dated 08.11.2016. Upon conducting a search, it was discovered that accused Nos.1 to 6 were in possession of demonetized currency notes of Rs.500/denomination and the accused claimed the value of the

¶34

notes would double if the notes were worshipped.

¶35

It is undisputed fact that demonetized currency

¶36

notes were allegedly recovered from accused Nos.1 to 6, and accused No.7 fled the scene during the search.

¶37

To constitute an offense punishable under

¶38

Section 420 of the IPC, it must be shown that a person induced another to part with property with an intention to cheat at the inception. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner induced anyone to part with property or currency notes with an intention to cheat. In the absence of the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, the cognizance

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

taken by the learned Magistrate for the said offence lacks merit.

¶43

Contravention of Section 5 of the Specified

¶44

Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, is punishable with a fine and is classified as a non-cognizable offense. Under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), police officers are required to obtain permission from the Magistrate before initiating an investigation into non-cognizable offenses. However, in the present case, the police conducted an investigation without obtaining the mandatory permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, rendering the investigation invalid.

¶45

In light of the above, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The co-ordinate bench of this Court has already stayed the entire proceedings insofar as accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.103744/2024. Hence,

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8545 CRL.P No. 102115 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the case against accused No.4 is also liable to be quashed.

¶49

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The petition stands allowed .

¶52

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.36/2021 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.4.

¶53

iii) The pending I.A’s, if any, is disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

¶54

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶55

AM/CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri. Tikke Nayak S/O. Shivappa Rudramani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Tikke Nayak S/O. Shivappa Rudramani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lavanya W/O Srinivasulu Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O. Suresh Ugargol Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashirvad S/O Srinivas Upadhyaya Vs Smt Rashmi W/O Ashirwad Upadyaya

Chennappa S/O Husenappa Narihala Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Rohit Parasharam Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Bharat S/O Ramesh Itagi Vs the State of Karnataka