- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201628 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HANMANTHA S/O AYYANNA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O, KUPPIGUDDA, TQ.LINGASUGUR, DIST.RAICHUR, KARNATAKA- 584122. 2. SMT. DEVAMMA W/O HANMANTHA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KUPPIGUDDA, TQ.LINGASUGUR, DIST.RAICHUR, KARNATAKA- 584122. 3. PARASHURAM S/O HANMANTHA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE AT TATA GROUP, R/O. KUNTLU REDDY LAYOUT, SOCIETY BACK, ANEKAL VTC AND PO. JIGANI DIST-BANGALORE, KARNATAKA- 560105. 4. AYYANNA S/O HANMANTHA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KUPPIGUDDA, TQ.LINGASUGUR, DIST.RAICHUR, KARNATAKA- 584122. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI BASAWARAJ NADGOUDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI-585103. 2. SHIVUKUMAR S/O RAMESH DOLLI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O SAGAR(B), TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIR KARNATAKA- 585323. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC NO.5486/2023 (CRIME NO.197/2023) OF SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHAHAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Basawaraj Nadgouda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Anita M. Reddy, learned High - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented. 2. Petition Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “praying to quash the proceeding against the petitioners in C.C.No.5486/2023 (Crime No.197/2023) of Shahapur police station, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 of IPC.” 3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 Respondent No.2 - Shivkumar filed a complaint with Shahapur police on 08.09.2023, which was registered in Crime No.197/2023, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3.2 Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 03.07.2023 at about 1:00 p.m., when complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 was proceeding on his motorcycle in Shahapur near Chand petrol bunk, the petitioners herein came there, intercepted his free movement, abused him in filthy language. When the same was resisted, all the petitioners assaulted and kicked him. The quarrel was pacified by Mallappa, Basavaraj and others. At the time of leaving the place of incident, all the petitioners gave life threat to the complainant and therefore, sought for action. 3.3 Police after registering the case have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and proceeding with the criminal case. The same is called in question in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the dependency of this petition, as per the directions of this Court, the Investigation Officer conducted further investigation, collected the attendance register certificates and filed ‘B’ final report insofar as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned and therefore, present petition may be dismissed as against petitioner Nos.3 and 4. 5. Insofar as continuation of the criminal proceedings in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were not at all present at the place of incident and therefore, there is no purpose in proceeding with the criminal case as against them. 6. He would further contend that the material available in charge sheet does not make out specific over- acts as against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the criminal case needs to be quashed. 7. He would further contend that there was an incident earlier to the present complaint on 19.01.2024 in Crime No.21/2024 for the incident that has occurred between 14.06.2020 and 27.04.2022 and there was no FIR against the complainant herein on his request. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 However, since there was no reconciliation in the matrimonial dispute, belated complaint came to be filed and therefore, pending proceedings against the petitioners needs to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 opposes the grounds urged in the petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the matrimonial relationship between the daughter of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 with respondent No.2 is not cordial. In respect of the same, the alleged incident has taken place is the contention of the complainant. 11. The complaint alleges involvement of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 also and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Investigation Officer has collected the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 attendance certificates of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 from the place where they are working in Bengaluru and then filed ‘B’ final report against petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the criminal case is being continued. 12. It is the defence of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they were not present in the place of incident as on the date of alleged incident. In other words, it is a clear defence of alibi. The ground of delayed complaint cannot be countenanced in law in the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 13. It is also pertinent to note that after the present complaint is filed, the petitioners herein have chosen to file a belated complaint after four years with regard to incident said to have occurred in the year 2020. 14. All these factors would only go to show that all is not well among the petitioners, their daughter and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3861 CRL.P No. 201628 of 2024 respondent No.2. Matter requires detail consideration by holding trial. 15. In other words, prima facie materials would make out a case for a trial. Accordingly, expressing any opinion in this petition would definitely hamper the rights of the petitioners and respondent No.2 as well as the prosecution. 16. Hence, desisting from holding a mini trail, if the material on record is analyzed for the purpose of disposed of this petition, the grounds urged in the petition cannot be countenanced in law for quashing the pending criminal case. 17. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:PK