- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14801 CRL.P No. 9517 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9517 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHRINIVASA J T (SHOWN IN CHARGE SHEET) S/O THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT JANAGERE VILLAGE KOTTAGEREHOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572130. 2. RATHNAMMA W/O THIRMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO JANAGERE VILLAGE KOTTAGEREHOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572130. 3. KUSUMA R W/O SRINIVASA J T AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT JANAGERE VILLAGE KOTTAGEREHOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572130. 4. THIRUMALAIAH W/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO JANAGERE VILLAGE KOTTAGEREHOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14801 CRL.P No. 9517 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL P.S. REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001. 2. SAVITHRAMMA W/O BETTASWAMY G K AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT JANAGERE VILLAGE KOTTAGEREHOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAVIKUMAR B R, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE IN CC.NO.72/2024 DTD 29.02.2024 PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUNIGAL, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,354,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are before this Court seeking appropriate reliefs. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14801 CRL.P No. 9517 of 2024 2. The prosecution alleges that the subject property is the ancestral property of the husband of the de facto complainant, and that on 01.07.2023, the accused persons trespassed into the said property, physically assaulted the de facto complainant, abused her in vulgar language, and outraged her modesty by pulling her saree and dragging her by the saree. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. A perusal of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the de facto complainant reveals that the allegations made therein are omnibus and general in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to each of the accused to demonstrate the manner in which they individually committed the alleged offences. The FIR lacks material particulars with respect to how and in what manner the petitioners used vulgar language, threatened the complainant with dire consequences, or committed acts amounting to outraging her modesty. 5. Furthermore, the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 01.07.2023, whereas the FIR was lodged belatedly on 07.07.2023. No satisfactory or plausible explanation has been offered for the delay in lodging the complaint, which casts a serious doubt on the credibility and genuineness of the allegations. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14801 CRL.P No. 9517 of 2024 6. It is also pertinent to note that the husband of the de facto complainant has executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of accused No.1 concerning the subject property. Accused No.1 has instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 212/2021, which is pending adjudication before the competent civil court. It appears that the present FIR has been lodged during the pendency of the said civil suit, giving rise to a strong inference that the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive, primarily to pressurize the petitioners into settling the civil dispute. 7. The allegations prima facie disclose that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, pertaining to enforcement of contractual obligations under a registered agreement of sale. However, it has been given a criminal colour with an apparent intent to harass the petitioners and to gain an unfair advantage in the pending civil litigation. 8. In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal petition is allowed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14801 CRL.P No. 9517 of 2024 ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.72/2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101