- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6615 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. PAYEL CHAKRABORTY W/O MR. SASANKA CHAKRABORTY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT R.K. MISSION ROAD, WARD NO.15, NATUNPARA, P.O.P.S, BONGAIGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM-783 380. 2. MR. SUBHASH CHAKRABORTY S/O LATE BIMAL CHAKRABORTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT R.K. MISSION ROAD, WARD NO.15, NATUNPARA, P.O.P.S, BONGAIGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM-783 380. 3. MRS. RITA CHAKRABORTY W/O SUBHASH CHAKRABORTY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT R.K. MISSION ROAD, WARD NO.15, NATUNPARA, P.O.P.S, BONGAIGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM-783 380. 4. MRS. PRIYANKA D/O SUBHASH CHAKRABORTY, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT- R.K. MISSION ROAD, WARD NO.15, NATUNPARA, P.O.P.S, BONGAIGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM-783 380. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ N., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. SANKAR CHAKRABORTY S/O LATE MANINDRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A-2, BAISAKHI APARTMENT, WARD NO.14, BAKHARAPARA PART-3, DOLAIGON, BONGAIGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM-783 380. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.14037/2019 DATED 03.12.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.14037/2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is called in question in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., was filed by respondent herein against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 120B, 323, 307, 341, 379, 381, 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. The learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 506, 323, 120B r/w 34 of IPC, and dismissed the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 complaint insofar as the offences under Section 379, 381, 406, 420 and 307 of IPC. 5. Insofar as dismissal of the complaint and not taking cognizance for the aforementioned offences, there is no challenge by the complainant. Impugned order dated 03.12.2019 taking cognizance is questioned in this petition. 6. The learned Magistrate while passing the order has observed that there are sufficient materials with regard to wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, giving threat to the life of the complainant etc. 7. A perusal of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. goes to show that accused Nos.2 to 4, none other than the father, mother and sister of accused No.1 are dragged into the proceedings alleging that they too have conspired with accused No.1 and shared common intention in collusion with each other and committed the offence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 8. Accused No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant. As per complaint averments, complainant’s son and accused No.1 were living in a rented house in Audgodi, Bengaluru. It is alleged that in the month of October 2018, accused No.1 requested her to handover the gold and diamond jewellary gifted by the complainant, his son and relatives and took the jewellery belonging to the complainant’s family, but not returned. 9. It is alleged by the complainant that all the jewellery are still with accused Nos.1 to 3 and at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4, accused No.1 used to quarrel with him, his wife and son. 10. A reading of the complaint would indicate that as against accused Nos.2 to 4, the allegations are that they too have conspired and colluded with accused No.1 and instigated her. Omnibus allegations are made against the said accused. Accused No.2 is alleged to have called the complainant over phone and threatened that he will cause harm and destroy his family etc., and it is alleged, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 accused Nos.3 and 4 also joined accused Nos.1 and 2 in threatening his wife and son. However, on the said allegation that the accused have threatened over phone or through Whatsapp message is not sufficient to proceed against them unless there are sufficient materials to array them as accused in a criminal proceeding. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate insofar as taking cognizance of the offences noted supra against accused No.1 has some substance. However, the order taking cognizance insofar as accused Nos.2 to 4 is an abuse of process of the Court. The complainant is relying on the telephonic conversations to implicate accused Nos.2 to 4 alleging they have posed threat to the life of his family members. However, this Court find that the materials on record are not sufficient to proceed against the petitioners-2 to 4. Consequently, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed-in-part. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11446 CRL.P No. 6615 of 2020 ii. The proceedings in CC No.14037/2019 pending on file of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is quashed insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned. iii. The proceedings shall continue against petitioner/accused No.1. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB/TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Ct:ar