IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100506 OF 2019 (341(Cr.PC)/380(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

NANDAKUMAR NAIDU S/O. DAMODAR NAIDU, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SAI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. SANGEETA KUMARI W/O. TARACHAND JAIN, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PALI, NAKODA CUT PIECE CENTRE, GHEEKA JHANDA, PALI CITY, RAJASTHAN STATE, PIN-306401.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA (BY SRI. H. R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 341 OF CR.P.C.

Dharwad Bench.

PRAYING TO EXERCISING THE APPELLANT JURISDICTION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN PCR (FR) NO.2/2018, DATED 18.10.2019, FILED U/S.340(2) R/W SEC. 195(1)(V) AND 4 OF CR.P.C, AND SET ASIDE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

21.02.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

1. This appeal is by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in PCR (F.R.) No.2/2018 rejecting the application filed under Section 340(2) r/w Section 195(1)(b) and (4) of Cr.P.C.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that, the respondent filed original suit in O.S.No.421/2016 on the file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge Court, Hubballi. The subject matter of the said suit is the property bearing Block No.8K(8/2j) measuring 2 acres 17 guntas of Sutagatti village of Hubballi taluk. In the plaint as well as in the affidavit, plaintiff has stated that the said property was agricultural land. In fact the said land was converted to non-agricultural purpose by order dated 04.08.1992 and it was developed for residential use. Thereby she filed false affidavit as well as gave false statement before the Court in O.S.No.421/2016 which amounts to offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193 and 199 read with Section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. With reasons petitioner prayed for following reliefs:

a) By exercising the appellant jurisdiction, the order passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in PCR (FR) No.2/2018, dated 18.10.2019, filed U/s.340(2) R/w Sec. 195(1)(v) and 4 of cr.p.c, may kindly be set aside in the ends of justice.

b) Any other appropriate orders may kindly be passed in the ends of justice.

4. It appears that the respondent has appeared and filed objections. Respondent denied the allegation made against her in the petition that she has committed the offences mentioned in the petition. She further contended that just to harass her, the said complaint was filed.

5. The learned Principal District Judge after hearing both the parties and considering the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C., so also Section 195 of Cr.P.C., rejected the said petition on the ground that the said complaint was not maintainable before the District Court and complainant has to approach the concerned court and file such application. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred this appeal.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not at all considered the offences alleged against the respondent. It is not necessary that such complaint should be filed before the very same court. Since the Principal District Judge is the appellate Court over the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, it could have taken cognizance of the petition and directed the concerned Court to lodge complaint. Therefore the orders passed by the Principal District Judge is contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, prayed to set aside the same and direct the Princip