IN THE HIGH COUTT OF KA1NATAKA CICUIT BNCH AT DHAWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BV.PTNTO Between: I. Shri Appanna, S/o. Laxman Kubakaddi, Age: 70 years, 0cc: Agriculturists, R/o. Bisinal Village, Taluk: Bilagi-587 116, District: Bagalkot. 2. Shri Chandrakant, S/o. Laxman Kubakaddi, Age: 60 years, 0cc: Agriculturists, R/o. Bisinal Village, Taluk: Bilagi — 587 116, District: Bagalkot. 3. Shri Maruti, S/o. Laxman Kubakaddi, Age: 55 years, 0cc: Teacher, R/o. Bisinal Village, Taluk: Bilagi 587 116, District: Bagalkot. . . . Petitioners (By Shri Madanamohan M, Khannur, Advocate) And: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by Additional S,P.P,, High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench Dharwad, -2- 2. The Police Sub-inspector. Bilagi Police Station. Bilage — 587 116. 3. The Tahashildar. Bilagi Taluk: Bilagi - 587 116. . . .Respondents (By Shri Anand Kumar Navalgimath, H.C.G.P.J This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.17/2009 by the 2nd respondent and charge sheet vide Annexure E dated 04.08.20 10 and acquit the petitioners. This criminal petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: - ORDER This petition is filed challenging the registration of the case against the petitioners in Crime No.17/2009 of Bilagi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463. 464, 465, 466, 468, 470, 471, 473, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the complainant, who is the Tahashildar of Bilagi Taluk that the accused have created false document to show that they belong to schedule caste community and they have claimed the property and they have filed an application for grant of -p 3 land. This Court. in writ petition No.2097/ 1998 passed the judgment dated 30.01.2001 stating that the petitioners herein have forged the document and therefore, the matter is required to be investigated by the C.O.D. It has directed the Revenue Secretary of Government of Karnataka to refer the case to C.O.D. Bangalore. for investigation and appropriate action with compliance report to be filed to this Court within 3 months from the date of the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court has directed the registration of the case by the Revenue Secretary whereas the complaint is filed by the Tahashildar. Secondh, he submits that the direction is to the effect that the compliance has to he reported within three months, whereas the order is passed in the year 2001 and the action is taken after lapse of 10 years. 4. Heard Shri Madanamohan M. Khannur. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri 4 Anand Kumar \avalgimath, learned H.C.G.P. for the re spon ci ents. 5. The Tahsiidar is an subordinate official of the Revenue Secretar and the complaint contains the averments made in writ petition No.2097/ 1998 and further the Tahsildar has filed the complaint on behalf of the State of IKarnataka. I do not see any error or illegality in the registration of the complaint. The offences are triable as warrant case offences, There is no limitation for filing the charge sheet in respect of the said offenccs. though the petitioner has got serious objections regarding delay. The said contention can be raised at the time of trial and final disposal of the case. At this stage. no grounds are made out to quash the proceedings. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE Rsh