Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14407
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VENKATESH NAIK T, J
SHIVAGOUDA BASAGOUDA PATIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101922 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI V. M. SHEELAVANT
For the Respondents: SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1, SHRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R2
The Court emphasized that factual disputes cannot be resolved under Section 482 of the CrPC, leading to the dismissal of the petition aimed at quashing serious charges.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners accused of kidnapping and murder of the complainant's husband. Petitioners disputed allegations that they were present in court at the time of the alleged crime, contending that the complaint lacks merit and was intended to harass. The Investigation revealed prima-facie evidence against them. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Criminal Law - Essential Elements - Burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish involvement in the alleged crime. The Court held that factual disputes cannot be examined at this stage and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR against the petitioners. (Paras 3, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were implicated in a case involving the alleged kidnapping and murder of the complainant's husband based on a formal complaint and subsequent investigations demonstrating a conspiracy involving multiple parties.
Findings of Court:
The Investigating Officer reported that evidence against the petitioners warranted continuation of the case and subsequent judicial proceedings.
Issues: The principal issues revolved around the validity of the complaint against the petitioners and the nature of the allegations made under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the petitioners' claims of being in court were factual assertions unsuitable for a Section 482 review and that the substantive investigation revealed serious charges necessitating a trial.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding the validity and implications of the allegations. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 2. facts surrounding the allegation of kidnapping and background context. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's evaluation of the investigation outcomes and evidence against the petitioners. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's conclusion on the justiciability of the petition under section 482. (Para 9 , 10) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), praying to quash the complaint and First Information Report registered in Crime No.123 of 2025 of Raibag Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Raibag, for the offence punishable under Section 137 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
2. The case of the petitioners is that the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Raibag Police Station, registered a case for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2/de facto complainant. In the complaint, it is alleged that the husband of the complainant is a practicing Advocate at Raibag Court. On 29-4-2025, at around 10:48 a.m., one Lakappa Bidri called the complainant and informed that motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-23 EU 1541, and mobile bag belonging to her husband, were fallen on the Raibag-Backward Road, near Sahu Park Bus stand. Immediately, the complainant rushed to the spot and thereafter, she lodged the complaint alleging that her husband's deceased brother, Laxman, and Shivagouda Basagouda Patil (petitioner No.1) were practicing Law together from 2015 to 2021. The deceased Laxman was having certain properties and those properties were transferred to the name of petitioner No.1. In that regard, conciliation was going on between petitioner No.1 and the husband of the complainant. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant was not ready to give the properties to petitioner No.1 on the premise that the properties were earned by his brother deceased Laxman. In this regard, the husband of the complainant also filed a suit in Original Suit No.21 of 2025 against petitioner No.1 for relief of declaration and injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Raibag. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 developed ill-will with the husband of the complainant and started threatening her husband with dire consequences and was asking him to withdraw the suit. On 29-4-2025, at 10:00 a.m., when her husband was proceeding to the Court, the petitioners and others have kidnapped her husband. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioners and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are practicing Advocates in Raibag Courts and having good names and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are not at all involved in the alleged offence. The entire allegation in the complaint is only on the basis of assumption and presumptions without there being any base.
4. Learned counsel has further contended that on perusing the complaint averments, it is specific allegation of the complainant that on 29-4-2025, the petitioners have kidnapped her husband. In fact, on the day of alleged incident, they were in Court and have appeared, conducted matters before the trial Court and got settled the cases on the very same date. On perusal of the complaint averments clearly establishes that the complainant is trying to give colour of criminal to the civil dispute and the complaint is filed with an intention to harass the petitioners. The entire averments in the complaint do not make out an offence punishable under Section 137 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . 5. Learned counsel has further contended that, this Court on 15-5-2025, while granting stay in the matter, observed that "the investigation shall proceed in accordance with law. Howeve
