- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6163 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. DEEPAK SARENA, SON OF HARI SARENA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, B-1, DAFFODILS APARTMENTS, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.D. SAHARSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. DINESH ALLAMAPRABHU, SON OF ALLAMAPRABHU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, A-1, DAFFODILS APARTMENT, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. RATTIHALLI GEETHA VEERANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 13.12.2018, PASSED BY THE HONBLE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.32801/2018 WHICH READS- PERUSED THE CHARGE SHEET, COGNIZNACE TAKEN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.324 OF IPC AGAINST THE ACCUSED, REGISTER AS C.C. ISSUE S/S TO ACCUSED CALL ON 11.01.2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC.No.32801/2018 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 3. As per complaint lodged by respondent No.2, on 23.10.2018 at about 10.45 p.m., accused trespassed into complainant's property and beat him up leaving severe wounds. It is alleged that the accused and his guests had blocked their car in the common area of the apartment and in spite of repeated requests through watchman, car was not removed to the other end. The accused who was drunk threatened to kill the complainant and also physically assaulted him etc. It is further alleged that four persons who were present, were all drunk and they ganged up and hurled abuses at the complainant in front of his family members and refused to move the car out of the common area of the apartment. 4. FIR was registered under Section 324 of IPC, however, what is relevant to be seen is that, the complainant has not alleged that he was assaulted with any weapon by the accused. To invoke Section 324 of IPC, it is necessary that the accused should have voluntarily caused hurt with weapons etc., as mentioned therein. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 said provision could attract only 'if hurt is caused by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death'. 5. If the complaint averments are taken on its face value, then ingredients of the said offence are not made out. However, while filing charge sheet, it is alleged that the accused assaulted and caused injury to the complainant with a car key, which is not at all stated in the complaint. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently contend that the injured has taken treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained, wherein he has given a history that he was assaulted with hands and car key. She has therefore, contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. As already noted above, in the complaint it is not stated that the accused used car key or assaulted the complainant with any weapon. Hence, registration of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 FIR for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC was not proper. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, on the basis of the complaint averments, the police could have registered a case under Section 323 of IPC. However, the said case being non- cognizable in nature, the police could not have conducted investigation without taking prior permission of the learned Magistrate. 8. Material on record would reveal that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are residing in one 'daffodils apartments' and the incident took place when the petitioner had parked his car in the common area of the apartment. When the complainant requested through watchman to remove the car which was parked in the common area, the alleged incident has taken place. The allegations that the accused has trespassed and beaten the complainant, prima facie appears to be incorrect, since the incident took place in the common area of the apartment as stated in the complaint itself. In respect of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 the very same incident, even the petitioner filed a complaint, on the basis of which NCR.No.146/2018 was registered. It is alleged therein that at about 10.45 p.m., on 23.10.2018 in connection with parking of the car, a quarrel took place between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and in the said quarrel, respondent No.2 raised his voice and pushed the petitioner etc. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also considering that in the complaint, there are no allegations that the petitioner has assaulted the complainant with any weapon, the registration of FIR for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is an abuse of process of law. 10. For the foregoing reasons the petition succeeds, accordingly the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14966 CRL.P No. 6163 of 2022 ii. The entire proceedings in CC.No.32801/2018 pending on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK