PARASHURAM S/O RAYAPPA GASTI ALIAS SANADI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102755 OF 2026

(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. PARASHURAM @ PARASAPPA
S/O. RAYAPPA GASTI @ SANADI
@ SANADI, AGE: 80 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

2. MALLAPPA S/O. PARASHURAM GASTI
@ SANADI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VALMIKINAGAR,
HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.N. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(BY HARUGERI POLICE STATION)
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.

2. MALIKARI AMMANNA ODEYAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: FARMER, R/O. KANNOLI-587330,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP)










Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026



THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS,
2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 1438/2017 OF HARUGERI POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, RAIBAG AT RAIBAG FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
UNDER 406, 420, 468 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3 ARE CONCERN.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2
and 3 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C), seeking
to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1438/2017
(Crime No.234/2016 of Harugeri Police Station), registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and
468 of IPC, pending on the file of learned Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Raibag.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case in
nutshell are as under:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


The defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the
respondent-police alleging that he was the owner of a
tractor-trailer bearing Chassis No.NNHY02813 and
temporary Registration No. KA-48/TR-7406. It is stated in
the complaint that, owing to financial difficulties, the
defacto complainant intended to sell the tractor and,
accordingly, requested accused Nos.1 to 3 to arrange for
prospective purchasers. Pursuant thereto, accused Nos.1
to 3 visited and inspected the tractor and expressed their
willingness to purchase the same for a consideration of
Rs.5,00,000/-. However, even after the expiry of one year,
accused Nos.1 to 3 neither returned the tractor nor paid
the agreed sale consideration. Subsequently, the defacto
complainant came to know that accused Nos.1 to 3, in
collusion with accused Nos.4 to 6, had allegedly tampered
with the chassis and engine numbers of the tractor and
sold the same to one Basavaraj Babugouda Patil, a
resident of Bailhongal. On these allegations, the accused
persons were alleged to have committed offences

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


punishable for cheating, criminal breach of trust and
fabrication of documents. This led to registration of FIR
and initiation of the investigation. The Investigating Officer
investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Taking
exceptions to the same, the petitioners have filed this
petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
Nos.2 and 3 vehemently contended that the alleged
incident occurred on 10.09.2015 whereas the defacto
complainant lodged the complaint on 13.10.2016. Hence,
there is delay of one year in lodging the complaint, and
the delay is not explained. The learned counsel contended
that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this
case and there are no materials so as to connect these
petitioners to the case. Further, the charge sheet material
do not discloses the commission of alleged offences.
Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


without any substance. Accordingly, the learned counsel
for the petitioners prayed to allow the petition.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the
ANKAJ UMAR S TATE
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P K V S
OF M AHARASHTRA AND O THERS reported in AIR 2008 SC
3077 and in the case of A RSHAD N EYAZ K HAN VS S TATE OF
J HARKHAND AND A NOTHER reported in 2025 L IVE L AW (SC)
950 .

5. Learned HCGP contended that the charge sheet
materials clearly disclose the commission of alleged
offence. The veracity of allegation against the accused can
be considered only after a full-fledged trial. Now the
petitioners are disputing the question of fact, which cannot
be gone into under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Hence,
learned HCGP prayed for rejection of the petition.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026



6. Heard Sri.S.N.Rajendra, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavar, learned HCGP
for the respondent No.1 – State.

7. Perused the materials available on record. The
alleged offence took place on 10.09.2015, whereas the
complaint came to be lodged on 13.10.2016. The defacto
complainant has assigned reasons for the delay, stating
that he was awaiting the return of the tractor or
repayment of the sale consideration by accused Nos.1 to
3. As they failed to return the tractor or pay the
consideration amount, he proceeded to lodge the
complaint against all the accused persons. The charge-
sheet material prima facie indicates that accused Nos.1 to
3 had initially undertaken to sell the tractor in question to
prospective purchasers and, accordingly, took possession
of the same. Thereafter, allegedly in collusion with
accused Nos.4 to 6, they tampered with the chassis and
engine numbers of the tractor and sold it to the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


prospective purchaser, namely, Basavaraj Babugouda Patil
of Bailhongal. In the above circumstances, the contentions
urged by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

8. The learned counsel for petitioners placed
reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in
the case of P ANKAJ K UMAR (supra) , wherein in paragraph
10, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:
“10. The scope and ambit of powers of the High
Court under Section 482, CrPC or Article 227 of the
Constitution has been enunciated and reiterated by this
Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances
under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in
quashing proceedings have been enumerated. Therefore,
we consider it unnecessary to burden the judgment by
making reference to all the decisions on the point. It
would suffice to state that though the powers possessed
by the High Courts under the said provisions are very
wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases,
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


the administration of which alone the courts exist. The
inherent powers do not confer (2007) 11 SCC 420
(2001) 8 SCC 607 an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whim or caprice. The powers
have to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and
in the rarest of rare cases, where the court is convinced,
on the basis of material on record, that allowing the
proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceedings ought to be quashed. [See: Janata
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.6, Kurukshetra University
& Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.7 and State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.8]”

9. Whereas, in the instant case, upon
consideration of the material available on record, this
Court is not inclined to accept the contentions urged by
the petitioners. On the contrary, the material on record
prima facie discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against
the petitioners, in accordance with law.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance
upon the decision of the Hon’able Apex Court in the case
of A RSHAD N EYAZ K HAN (supra) , and contended that in a
similar set of facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


Court quashed the proceedings. The perusal of the
judgment cited supra, it appears that the parties were
entered into agreement of sale and subsequently one of
the parties failed to comply the agreement of sale. Hence,
the aggrieved party instead of filing a suit for specific
performance filed the criminal complaint. Hence, the
principles laid down in A RSHAD N EYAZ K HAN (supra) , are
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

11. In the instant case, the contentions urged by
the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In view of the material
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no grounds are made out to interfere with the
proceedings. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16967
CRL.P No. 102755 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020181142026


Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed .
Pending I.A’s, if any, stand disposed of, as it do not
survive for any consideration.
The observations made herein are only for the
purpose of disposal of this petition. The trial court shall
proceed with the trial and dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.


Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE




MBS
CT:GSM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39