Hanumanthgowdakalmani Vs the State of Karnataka

PETER VINOD CHAND K, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O JAYACHANDRA PAUL, PRESENTLY R/O H.NO.6, "GOD GRACE", NEAR M.R. REHAMAN GENERAL STORES, SADASHIVA COLONY, VTC HUBLI HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 020

¶13

SMT. SHALINI NAIK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O RAMESH G L, R/O MARATHURU, TALAGUPPA HOBLI, SAGARATALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 430.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. YAJI NARAYAN VISHNU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45143 CRL.P No. 11914 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401

¶20

REPRESENTED BY THE BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

GANAPATHI S.M., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O MANJUNATHAPPA, LECTURER, R/O LAKSHMINIVASA DHANALAKSHMI OIL MILL BACK SIDE, GANGAPARAMESHWARI ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 25.08.2024 IN CRIME NO.0187/2024 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT SAGARA TOWN POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:45143 CRL.P No. 11914 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners being aggrieved by the registration of FIR in Crime No.187/2024 at Sagar town police station, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC have preferred this petition to quash the Proceedings.

¶32

In the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, it is averred that he has been working as a guest lecture for the last 12 years in a government First Grade College, Sagar, and prior to that he worked in the same capacity at L.B. College, Sagar for a period of 16 years. It is alleged that for regularization of service, and in the guise of making the guest lecturers permanent, the petitioners induced the complainant and others to deposit Rs.3,50,000/- each and accordingly, the complainant transferred the said amount to the account of Saint Milagres, Credit Sauharda Co-operative Society, Allavara Town Branch, Darwad. It is further alleged that a total sum of ₹ 17,50,000 was deposited, however, without

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45143 CRL.P No. 11914 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Returning the said amount and also not fulfilling the

¶37

promise, the accused have cheated the complainant etc.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶39

contend by relying on the bank statement of the petitioners that no amount as alleged by the complainant has been deposited in the account and therefore, the entire allegations are false. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the amount as mentioned in the complaint was deposited by the complainant and others.

¶40

As per complaint averments, the accused by promising that they will get the guest lecturer post regularized and stating that they are in constant touch with the concerned Ministers etc. Received Rs.3,50,000/each from the complainant and others and later cheated them. Even though respondent No.2 has alleged that the said amount was deposited into the account of the Manager, St. Milagres Credit Souharda Co-Operative Ltd., Alnavar Branch, Dharwad-581103, to his current account

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45143 CRL.P No. 11914 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

No.4637210000005, IFSC code CNRB0004637, at Cananra Bank, Alnavar Town, the same has been disputed by the Learned counsel for the petitioners. The disputed question cannot be decided in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (528 of the BNSS). This Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial/inquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. It is the duty of the police to look into the allegations and file an appropriate report after conducting an investigation. Prerogative of the police to conduct the investigation cannot be interfered with. It is always open for the petitioners to place all the materials before the investigating officer. If any adverse report is filed against the petitioners, it is open for them to challenge the same. Petition is dismissed .

¶44

IA is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶46

LDC/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT-SG

Hanumanthgowdakalmani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthgowdakalmani v. the 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

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Akki Lakshmi Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju B H Vs State of Karnataka

Munegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Hajeera Tabsum Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Harshith M Suvarna Vs State of Karnataka