Dismissed

Yallappa Fakirappa Kalli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026CRL.P/105002/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings for sections 283, 353, 504 IPC. The court held quashing was premature despite lack of independent witnesses, distinguishing it from a prior matter involving the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash proceedings was dismissed.

Yallappa Fakirappa Kalli Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 105002 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

YALLAPPA FAKIRAPPA KALLI AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. HOUSE NO. 50, GUDACHI RAMDURG BELAGAVI 590001.

¶11

VIVEK PRATAP CHANDANSHIVU AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMEN, R/O. CHANDANSHIVU COLONY MUDHOL, BAGALKOT KARNATAKA 587101.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. ANKIT RAMESH DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶16

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.17 16:59:26 +0530

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MARKET POLICE STATION BY ITS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI CITY DISTRICT BELAGAVI 590001 ALSO REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BENCH AT DHARWAD 580001.

¶18

S.N. SARAWADI AGE MAJOR, OCC. POLICE OFFICER R/O. MARKET POLICE STATION BELAGAVI KARNATAKA 590001 REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.524/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF JMFC II COURT

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 283, 353, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶29

Heard Sri.Ankit Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilatha R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶30

Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

¶31

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer:

¶32

“ Under the circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

¶33

i. Quash the entire proceedings in CC No.524/2018 pending before the Court of JMFC II, court Belagavi for the offence punishable under Sections 283, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner No.1 and 2/accused No.1 and 2.

¶34

ii. Pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Respondent No.2 is a Police Officer, filed a complaint with Market Police Station, Belagavi by contending that on 03.03.2018, he was deputed to discharge the work in Central Bus stand from 2.00 p.m. to 9 p.m. At about 8.30 p.m., in front of the Central Bus stand, there was huge traffic in view of the busses being proceeding to the bus stand and going out of the bus stand.

¶38

In the public road, petitioners herein said to have parked a car bearing registration No.KA-65/M-6055 obstructing the free flow of traffic. Respondent No.2 went near the car and told the inmates of the car to move away the car for free flow of the traffic. At that juncture, petitioners said to have abused respondent No.2 and also questioned his authority in commanding them to take away the car.

¶39

Despite repeated request, petitioners started consuming liquor in the car itself and respondent No.2 immediately called the police station for necessary police force.

¶40

Sri.V.B.Malagi – CPC No.1343, Sri.V.M.Jamadar –

¶41

CPC No.1337, Sri.M.S.Chavadi – CPC No.2225 came there and all

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of them, told the petitioners to take away the car from the parked place.

¶45

Despite such commands, petitioners failed to take away the car and started abusing the police personnel. Petitioners did not cooperate for the breathe test through the breathe analyzer.

¶46

Thereafter, additional police force has been secured and car was removed from the place which was parked and the inmates of the car, at that point of time, are the petitioners and therefore, sought for action against the petitioners.

¶47

Market Police after registering the case in Crime No.75/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 283, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

¶48

Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process.

¶49

Same is called in question, before this Court, in this petition.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that there is no independent witness examined by the investigation agency for the alleged obstruction of free flow of traffic and therefore, very filing of the charge sheet is incorrect.

¶53

He would further contend that petitioners did not obstruct the discharge of the duty by the Government official and therefore, no ingredients are attracted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and thus, sought for quashing the pending proceedings.

¶54

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents would contend that admittedly, respondent No.2 is a stranger to the petitioners and in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity, why would they file a false case against the petitioners is a question that remains unanswered in the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶55

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that respondent No.2 was deputed to the duty near the Central Bus stand between 2.00 p.m. to 9 p.m. on 03.03.2018.

¶59

The incident alleged to have occurred around 8.30 p.m., wherein the petitioners have parked the car bearing registration No.KA-65/M-6055 in the public road situated in front of the Central Bus stand, Belagavi.

¶60

Admittedly, there was a huge traffic on the road and then respondent No.2 requested the petitioners to remove the car from the place. When they refused to do so, respondent No.2 secured additional police force as referred in the complaint. Additional three police personnel came along with respondent No.2 and requested the petitioners to remove the car and at that juncture, petitioners not only failed to remove the car, but started consuming liquor and they did not cooperate with the police for breath test by breathe analyzer and also abused the police personnel in filthy language.

¶61

Ultimately, respondent No.2 has to secure further police force and remove the car from the place which was parked.

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

These are the allegations found against the petitioners even in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet.

¶65

In a matter of this nature, police getting the independent witness may be difficult.

¶66

If it is the case of the petitioners that it is a motivated or false complaint, same needs to be established during the trial after cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.

¶67

Therefore, it is too pre-mature for this Court to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners to quash the pending proceedings.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.100067/2023 dated 25.07.2023 and wants the charge sheet to be quashed.

¶69

Facts involved in the said case are altogether different compared to the facts involved in the present case.

¶70

In the said case, obstruction of the traffic was said to have taken place during the period of Covid-19 pandemic where hardly there was any traffic on the road.

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2213 CRL.P No. 105002 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

In the case on hand, incident has occurred in the busy road that too in front of the Central Bus stand, Belagavi. Therefore, the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.100067/2023 dated 25.07.2023 is of no avail in quashing the pending criminal proceedings in the present case.

¶74

Accordingly, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

Petition is dismissed .

¶77

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶78

KAV CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 65

Yallappa Fakirappa Kalli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yallappa Fakirappa Kalli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shobha Vs Somashakhar S/Jo Basayya Hiremath

Dr Jayaram Chavan S/O Motilal Chavan Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar Avinash S/O. Ganesh Bibate, Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman Dundappa Navi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ameerkhan S/O. Mahaboobsab Bhagwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shridhar S/O Chandru Binage Vs Viijayakumar B Gaonkar