H P Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H.P. PRAKASH S/O H.C. PARVATACHARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RETIRED FDA, ARG COLLEGE ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE DAVANGERE R/O D NO.743/1 KALPAVRUKSHA, 10TH MAIN ROAD P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANGERE - 577 002.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI REVANNA BELLARY, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA DAVANGERE REPRESENTED BY ITS HIGH COURT GOVENMENT PROSECUTOR (SPP) /PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR M.V, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE BOTH ORDERS DATED 05.08.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.20/2025 OF I APPELLATE COURT, I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, DAVANAGERE AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED ON APPLICATION U/S. 239 OF CR.P.C. TO DISCHARGE PETITIONER FROM TRIAL COURT II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DAVANAGERE, AND PRAYS FOR DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER IN CC.NO.120/2018 OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 408, 420, 465 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.08.2025 passed Criminal Appeal No.20 of 25 by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere and the order dated 23.11.2024 passed in C.C.No.120 of 2018 by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent.

¶24

Petitioner herein is charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 465, 408 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.90 of 2017, registered by Davangere Extension Police Station, Davangere and case is registered against him before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.120 of 2018. In the said proceedings, he had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to discharge him from the

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

aforesaid offences. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court by Order 23.11.2024. The same was questioned by the petitioner before the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Criminal Appeal 20 of 2025 which was dismissed on 05.08.2025. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this criminal revision petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the service register was not at all recovered in the present case and the disputed signature of the petitioner was also not forwarded to an expert. In the absence of the material documents, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the charge sheeted offences. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and have erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, seeking his discharge.

¶29

Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned order and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶30

FIR in the present case was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences based on the first

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

information dated 26.04.2017 received from Sri K.B.Kuberappa, who was working as an in-charge principal in the institution, in which petitioner was working as a second division assistant. It is the case of the prosecution that, the petitioner, who was working as a second division assistant in Bapuji Vidya Samsthe had tampered his service register to appear as if there was no departmental enquiries or criminal cases pending against him and that he had a blemish less service. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and after taking cognizance of the charge sheeted offences, case is registered against the petitioner in C.C.No120 of 2018.

¶34

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.4162 of 2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.120 of 2018. The said petition was dismissed by the Coordinate Branch of this Court by order dated 13.09.2023 and in paragraph no.7 of the said order, it is observed as follows:

¶35

"7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a second division assistant at Bapuji Vidya Samsthe. It is also not in dispute that, by the time an entry was made in

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the service register of the petitioner, there were already departmental enquiries pending against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the principal of the Bapuji Vidya Samsthe retired on 31.05.2014 and the complainant/respondent No.2 was granted additional charge of the post of principal with effect from 01.06.2014. The petitioner retired from the service on 30.11.2016. The entries found in the service register against the name of the petitioner were made prior to 31.05.2014 when Mr.Mohammad Javeed was the principal of the institution. Therefore, any entry in the service register must have been in the handwriting of Mr.Mohammad Javeed. The investigation officer has recorded the statement of Mr.Mohammad Javeed as C.W.5 and he has stated that the handwriting found in the service register does not belong to him and that it belongs to the petitioner. C.W.4, the Secretary of the Institution, also stated that it was the petitioner who made entries in the service register. Therefore, there are materials to justify the prosecution of the petitioner and therefore, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings. If the petitioner has any grievances over the way the charge sheet is filed or if the charge sheet is incomplete, he may seek discharge before the Trial Court in accordance with law"

¶40

Since, this Court while dismissing the

¶41

Crl.P.No.4162/2018 had observed that petitioner is at liberty to file a discharge application before the Trial Court, if he has any

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

grievance over the way the charge sheet is filed or if the charge sheet is incomplete, the petitioner has thereafter filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, in C.C.No.120 of 2018, which was opposed by the prosecution. The Trial Court by a reasoned order dated 23.11.2024, after appreciating the material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and being satisfied that a prima-facie case was made out by the prosecution to ask the petitioner to stand trial for the charge sheet offences, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C,.

¶46

It is trite that, at the stage of considering application seeking discharge, the Trial Court is not required to hold a mini trial and it is only required to satisfy itself whether the material collected by the prosecution in support of the charge sheet allegation are sufficient to prima-facie make out a case against the accused to stand trial for the alleged offences.

¶47

In the case on hand, such an exercise has been done by the learned Trial Court and in my opinion, the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner had preferred an appeal

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8717 CRL.RP No. 1295 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

as against the said order in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere by order dated 05.08.2025. Thereby the order of discharge passed by the Trial Court has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶51

It is trite that the scope of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the Court below is very narrow. Even otherwise, the impugned order passed by the Courts below, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, is just and proper. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order which calls for interference. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition.

¶52

12. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶53