- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8723 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10042 OF 2024 IN CRL.P No. 8723/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DUGGAMMA, W/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. 2. SMT. VARIJA, D/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. (VARIJA IS THE DAUGHTER OF BABU POOJARY BUT WRONGLY MENTIONED AS WIFE OF BABU POOJARY) 3. SRI. RAGHURAMA POOJARY, S/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 4. SMT. JAYANTHI, D/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. (JAYANTHI IS THE DAUGHTER OF BABU POOJARY BUT WRONGLY MENTIONED AS WIFE OF BABU POOJARY) 5. SRI. RAJESH POOJARY, S/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. 6. SMT. RANJITHA, D/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. 7. SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O SESAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. DINESH POOJARI, S/O SHEENA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.1142/2023 (CR.NO.117/2021) FILED BY THE BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AS PER ANNEXURE - B. IN CRL.P NO. 10042/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAGHURAM POOJARY, S/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A DAILA DARKASU MANE, RAYI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 2. SMT. VARIJA, D/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A DAILA DARKASU MANE, RAYI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 3. JAYANTHI, D/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A DAILA DARKASU MANE, RAYI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 4. SMT. DUGGAMMA, W/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, RAYI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. DINESH POOJARI, S/O LATE SHEENA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A DAILA DHARKHASU HOUSE, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 RAYEE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1101/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER AND FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NOs.2 TO 4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND THE ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C PER ANNEXURE - B AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER In Crl.P.No.8723/2024: 1. The petitioners who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 149 of IPC are before this Court seeking the relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 26.09.2021, at about 5.00 pm, the petitioners - accused criminally trespassed into the subject property and when they were taking the stone from the compound wall to their house, at that time, the complainant questioned them, at that time all the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 accused herein abused the complainant with vulgar language and threatened him with dire consequences. 3. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners counsels submitted that the allegations even accepting on the face of it does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations in the absence of specific overt act would be an abuse of process of law. 4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet material disclose the commission of the offences against the petitioners and the veracity of allegation for commission of the offences can be considered only at the time of the trial and the same cannot be gone into in this petition, as such, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been duly considered. 6. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicate that on the date of the alleged incident, the accused allegedly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 abused the complainant in vulgar language and threatened them with dire consequences. There is no specific overt act against each of the accused detailing how and in what manner each of the accused abused the complainant with vulgar language and threatened him with dire consequences. The alleged incident had taken place during the currency of the order of temporary injunction operating against the complainant in O.S.No.41/2020. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, however, given the criminal texture. The complaint was filed to circumvent the order of temporary injunction. 7. To establish the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, it must be demonstrated that the accused action amounted to intentional insult and criminal intimidation with intent to provoke the complainant to commit the offences. However, the material on record does not disclose such intentional insult or intimidation resulting in the complainant committing any other offences. Therefore, in the absence of the essential elements to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offences, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1142/2023 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, is hereby quashed. In Crl.P.No.10042/2024: 8. The petitioners - accused who are charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC, are before this Court seeking the relief. 9. The prosecution alleges that on 19.11.2022, when the complainant was plucking the coconut in the land at that time, the accused abused the complainant in vulgar language as to why he is plucking coconut and threatened him with dire consequences and accused No.2 assaulted with the stick. 10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners' counsel submitted that the alleged incident had taken place during the currency of the order of temporary injunction operating against the complainant in O.S.No.42/2020. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, however, given the criminal texture to circumvent the order of temporary injunction. He further submitted that even accepting the allegation on the face of it, the same does - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the statement of the eye witnesses coupled with the charge sheet material clearly disclose the commission of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of trial and cannot be gone into this petition. 12. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties having duly considered. 13. The Trial Court in O.S.No.41/2020 vide order dated 06.02.2020 has granted an interim order of injunction restraining the complainant from trespassing into the 'A' schedule property. The F.I.R was lodged during the currency of the temporary injunction operating against the complainant which clearly implies that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given criminal texture. The petitioners were also sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. However, there is no substantial evidence or any medical evidence to substantiate that the complainant sustained - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13768 CRL.P No. 8723 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10042 of 2024 simple injury due to the alleged assault made by accused No.1. In the further statement the complainant has categorically stated that there is no assault made by accused No.1 with the stick. Even accepting that the complainant was assaulted with the stick, the same has not resulted in causing any simple injury. Therefore, as there is no substantial evidence to establish that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii)The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1101/2023 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3