BHIRAPPA S/O SHEKHAPPA APPANNANAVAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100185 OF 2026
[482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
BHIRAPPA
S/O SHEKHAPPA APPANNANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRESS REPORTER,
RESIDING OF: HULLATTI,
TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI - 581 104.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VADIRAJ P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MUNDAGOD POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
2. JAYA
W/O PARASAPPA YALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
RESIDING OF: BACHANAKI,
TALUK: MUNDAGOD,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 349.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1, &
SRI VIJAY S. CHINIVAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)
*
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO.398 OF 2025, REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.215 OF
2024 DATED 29.11.2024 BY MUNDAGOD POLICE STATION, UTTARA
KANNADA, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
MUNDAGOD, UTTARA KANNADA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Vadiraj P. Vadavi, learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused No.1, and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case
No.398 of 2025 in connection with Crime No.215 of 2024
registered by Mundagod Police Station, Uttara Kannada pending
on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mundagod, Uttara Kannada, registered for the offences
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
de facto
Respondent No.2- complainant lodged a
complaint against the petitioner alleging that, in the year 2021,
the petitioner induced him by promising to secure government
employment for his son and demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
de facto
Accordingly, on 01.03.2021, the complainant paid an
advance amount of Rs.5,000/- in the presence of CWs.5 and 6.
It is further alleged that, on 06.03.2021 and 15.04.2021, the
de facto
complainant transferred Rs.95,000/- and Rs.50,000/-,
respectively, to the Bank account of the petitioner. However,
the petitioner neither secured the promised employment, nor
returned the amount received. Pursuant to the registration of
the complaint, the Investigating Officer conducted the
investigation and filed the charge-sheet.
4. Taking exception to filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner has filed this petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences
and has been falsely implicated in the case. There is a delay of
three years and eight months in lodging the complaint, and the
de facto
said delay has not been explained by the complainant.
He further contended that the complaint was lodged with an
intention to harass the petitioner and that there is no direct
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Therefore,
the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are not
attracted. He further contended that the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC have distinct ingredients
and cannot be simultaneously invoked on the same set of facts
unless the essential ingredients of both offences are
independently satisfied. While Section 406 of the IPC requires
entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation,
Section 420 of the IPC requires deception and dishonest
inducement. Hence, the allegations do not attract both offences
simultaneously. In support of the said contention, the learned
counsel places reliance on the decision in the case of ARSHAD
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
NEYAZ KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER ,
reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950 .
Per contra
6. , the learned High Court Government Pleader
has vehemently contended that the material available in the
charge-sheet clearly disclose the commission of the alleged
offences. The veracity of the allegations against the petitioner
can be examined only after a full-fledged trial. He further
contended that the present petition was filed at the stage when
the trial Court had taken cognizance and issued process.
However, the trial Court has subsequently framed charges
against the petitioner and the matter is now posted for trial. At
this stage, the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings is
not maintainable. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegations
de facto
against the petitioner are that he induced the
complainant by promising to secure government employment
for his son and demanded money in that regard. It is alleged
de facto
that the petitioner received Rs.1,50,000/- from the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
complainant, both in cash and through online Bank transfers,
but subsequently failed to secure the promised employment or
return the amount received. The order-sheet maintained by
the trial Court clearly indicates that charges have been framed
against the petitioner and that the matter is posted for trial.
This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The framing of charges indicates that the trial Court,
upon consideration of the material available on record, found
sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner.
8. The fact that Section 406 of the IPC would attract, or
Section 420 of the IPC would attract is a matter of trial. The
offences of ‘cheating’ and ‘criminal breach of trust’ cannot co-
exist on same allegations. While the offence of cheating
involves criminal intention from inception, and for criminal
breach of trust, there is lawful entrustment at the beginning,
which is later misappropriated. Both these offences cannot exist
simultaneously on same facts, as they are ‘antithetical’ to each
other. Though the offences of cheating and criminal breach of
trust have distinct ingredients, the question as to whether the
allegations in the present case attract either or both of the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
offences requires consideration in the light of the specific
allegations and the evidence on record.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in several judgments, has
reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings must
be exercised sparingly and with caution. The mere fact that
charges have been framed does not, by itself, bar the exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, the Court would ordinarily
be slow to interfere with the criminal proceedings when the
matter has proceeded to trial, unless grounds warranting such
interference are made out. In the present case, the petitioner
has not made out any exceptional circumstances warranting the
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the
entire proceedings. The contentions raised by the petitioner
involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated
by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the
petition. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed .
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17449
CRL.P No. 100185 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006032026
11. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any
observations made herein, which are confined to the
consideration of the present petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16