- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9673 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHANKERE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O BORAIAH H RESIDENT OF VADDARA KEMPAPURA, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, CHOWDANAKUPPE, TUMKURU - 572 123 2. MR. ABHILASH T S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE T N SHIVAKUMAR, RESIDING AT SAI NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, NEAR OLD NEHRU ENGLISH SCHOOL, KRISHNANAGAR SHETTIHALLI, TUMKURU - 572 103. 3. MR. RAVISHANKAR S N AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJU V, RESIDING AT MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, BADDHALLI, NEAR SLN BANGLES, TUMKURU - 572 104 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMKURU TOWN POLICE STATION, TUMKURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MR. ALLAMMA PRABHU T K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY T B RESIDING AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKURU - 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL.SPP FOR R1; SRI. CHAITANYA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR. NO. 293/2024 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468, 34 OF IPC, NOW PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM COURT AT TUMKURU ON THE COMPLAINT OF MR. ALLAMA PRABHU SUDHA REGISTERED BY THE TUMKURU TOWN POLICE, TUMKURU. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 are at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.293/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Shri Praveen C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Chaitanya S.G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The second respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on the score that in the year 2014, the second respondent had begun his avocation as a civil contractor. The brother-in-law of the second respondent gets a contract work from one IMC company in July-2019 for a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 contract value of Rs.50/-crores and to manage the work and help him in the work took assistance of these petitioners. It is the allegation of the second respondent that the petitioners along with others had a conspiracy that they would kill him conspiring with the wife of the second respondent - complainant, as the amount involved in the contract or in future contracts are huge. It is further averment in the complaint that in a plot ploy to kill the second respondent, a certain powder is mixed in the breakfast due to which the health and behavior of the complainant begun to change. The wife and the brother-in-law and friends forcibly admitted the complainant to a particular hospital, where he was given shock treatment and had lost his consciousness. Based upon the aforesaid incident, the complainant draws every person into the web of crime, his wife, his brother-in-law and his friends by registering a complaint. The complaint becomes a crime in crime No.293/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioners - accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 are at the doors of this Court on the score that in a dispute between the husband and the wife or the family members, the petitioners without any rhyme or reason have been drawn into the web of these - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 proceedings. The resultant action of drawl of these petitioners is that their bank accounts get frozen. On all these scores, the present petition is preferred. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the averments in the petition contending that the petitioners have nothing to do with the dispute between the husband and the wife or the brother-in-law. In the entire complaint there is no allegation of any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. He would therefore, seek quashment of the proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent though put up vehement opposition to the submissions would ultimately accept that there is no averment in the complaint against these petitioners and would leave the decision to the Court. 6. The respondent - State would also toe to the lines of the learned counsel for the respondent in admitting the fact that there are no allegations against the petitioners in the complaint. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 7. In the light of the said submission, all that is required to be noticed is the complaint that has become crime in crime No.293/2024. The complaint reads as follows: " gÀವೆ, ಾಾ ಾಗಳ ನಗರ ೕ ಾೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ನಗರ, ಇಂದ, . ೆ ಅಲಮಪ ಭು "# $ೇ% ." ಕು&ಾ' (ಾ)* 40 ವಷ,, ಂಾ-ತ ಜ/ಾಂಗ, ಕಂ0ಾ ಕ1' ೆಲಸ, 3ಾಸ;ಮು4ೆ5ೆ ಾ ಮ, ಬುಗುಡನಹ9:, ೕ1, ;ೆ<ಾ:= >ೋಬ9 ತುಮಕೂರು ?ಾಲೂಕು & @$ೆ. ೕ# ನಂ:9845636126. &ಾನA5ೇ, =ಷಯ;Cೕಸ, ವಂಚ/ೆ, ೊ$ೆ ಪ ಯತE &ಾF ನನE ಹ$ೆೆ ಯGEHರುವವರ =ರುದI ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ೈೊಳ:ವ ಬೆK. ಈ NೕಲOಂಡ =ಷಯ ೆO ಸಂಬಂHದಂ?ೆ ಈೆK 2014 ರ /ಾನು H=P ಕಂ0ಾ ಕ1' ೆಲಸವನುE Qಾ ರಂRH ೊಂಡು @ೕವನ ನSೆH ೊಂಡು ಬಂ4ರು?ೆTೕ/ೆ, ನನE ನನE ಅಕOನ ಗಂಡ ( =ಶ)/ಾಥ H, ?ಾರ9) ರವರು 2019 ರ ಜು$ೈನ ಐ.ಎಂ.H ಕಂಪY-ಂದ 50 ೋಗೂ *ೕದ ಒಂದು ಗುGTೆ ೆಲಸ ನನೆ H[Oದು\, ಈ ಗುGTೆ ೆಲಸವನುE Yವ,]ಸಲು ಮತುT ೆಲಸ ೆO ಸ>ಾಯ &ಾಡಲು ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತ5ಾದ ಶಂಕ5ೇೌಡ ಮತುT ಅR$ಾಷ, =ಯ_ ಕುಂಆ', ರ=ಶಂಕ' >ಾಗೂ =ೕರಭದ ತಲ3ಾ' ಮತುT ಇತರರು ನಮa ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆO ತುಂ;ಾ ಹGTರ3ಾದರು. ನಂತರ ನನE ೆಲಸದ ಆcಾಯ ಮತುT ದುಡುNಯನುE /ೋF ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತರು (ೇ ೊಂಡು ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರ&ಾೆ ಅವನನುE "ಟು1 "ಡು ಈ ೆಲಸ ಮತುT ಅವರ ಆcಾಯ YನEcಾಗುತTcೆ ಅವನನುE ಹ?ೆA &ಾFದ5ೆ /ಾವe fೆ/ಾEgರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ತ$ೆ ಕSೆHದ\ಂದ 2020 ಂದ ನನE >ೆಂಡGಯ ಅವರ hತೂ &ಾತನುE ೇಳ?ೊಡgದಳ. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 ಅದರಂ?ೆ ನನEನುE ಹ?ೆA &ಾಡಲು /ಾನು (ೇ=ಸುವ ಆ>ಾರದ ಮತುT ಊಟ GಂFಯ jಾವecೋ ಪeFಯನುE ;ೆರH ೊಡುGTದ\ಂದ ನನE ಆ5ೋಗA ಮತುT ನಡವ9 ೆಗಳ ಬದ$ಾವೆಗ<ಾದವe. ಆದ ನನEನುE ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರ&ಾ ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತರು (ೇ ೊಂಡು 2021ರ ಜನವ 2/ೇ 3ಾರದ ಬಲವಂತ3ಾg ಸkಂದನ ಆಸk?ೆ ೆ (ೇH ನನೆ ಅ lಾm 0ೆ ೕ% Nಂ% ೊFH ನನೆ ಪ nೆ >ೋಗುವಂ?ೆ &ಾF /ಾನು jಾವeದಕೂO ಉಪpೕಗ ;ಾರದಂ?ೆ ನನE Nೕ$ೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂhHರು?ಾT5ೆ,. ನಂತರ ನನೆ ೕ% Nಂ% ೊಡುGTದ\ Sಾಕ1' ಕುಪeಬು ರವರು /ಾನು ಅವರ qೊ?ೆ ಅಸಭA ೕG ನSೆದು ೊಳ:ವಂ?ೆ ನನEನುE ಪ fೋ4ಸುGTದ\ರು ನನE ಅಕOನು Sಾಕ1' ಬ9 (ೆ ೆಂr ಒhYಯ# ?ೆೆದು ೊಳ:ಲು ಸೂsHದರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರನುE 4ಕOH ಅವರು lಾm 0ೆ ೕ% Nಂ% ಗಳನುE ೊ1ರು?ಾT5ೆ, ನನE t ೕಮG ಮತುT ಅವರ ಸಹಚರರು ನನE ಾ' ೆಎ-06- ಜr 3336 ನದ\ @.h.ಎ $ೊ ೇಷ# F ೆ1ೕಟ' ನುE ಉcೆ\ೕಶಪuವ,ಕ3ಾgvೕ F ಕ/ೆm1 &ಾFರು?ಾT5ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನE ?ಾ- 3 Gಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಆಸk?ೆ -ಂದ ನನEನುE 3ಾಪಸುw ಮ/ೆೆ ಕ5ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದರೂ ನನೆ Cದನಂ?ೆ ೆಲಸ &ಾಡಲು ಆಗುGTರಲ ಮತುT ಬು4Iಶ[Tಯು ಕFNjಾgತುT. 4/ಾಂಕ;05/06/2024 ರಂದು ಮcಾAಹE 3-00 ಗಂ0ೆಯ ನನE >ೆಂಡG ಮತುT ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತ5ೆಲರೂ (ೇ ೊಂಡು ನನEನುE ತುಮಕೂರು ಸx @ೕಸ1' ಕfೇ ಬ9 ಕ5ೆH ೊಂಡು ನನE ಬ9 ಇದ\ ==ಧ ;ಾAಂ[ನ ;ಾಂm fೆm ಗಳ Nೕ$ೆ ಸ] >ಾ[H ೊಂFರು?ಾT5ೆ. ಅದಲcೆ ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರಮa ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT (ೆEೕ]ತ5ಾದ ಶಂಕ5ೇೌಡ, ಅ"$ಾಷ ಮತುT ಇತರರು ನನE£ÀÄß ಸುೆ &ಾಡಲು ಪತೂ &ಾF ನನE ;ಾAಂ[ನ zಾ?ೆಯನುE &ಾA# Sೇ% ಪSೆದು ೊಂಡು CªÀgÀÄ Yವ,]ಸುವಂ?ೆ ಹಣ ?ೆೆದು ೊಳ:ದಂ?ೆ cಾಖ$ೆಗಳನುE (ೕಜ,) &ಾF ೊಂಡು ಹಣವನುE ಅಕ ಮªÁV ಅವರ zಾ?ೆೆ ಮತುT ನಗcಾg ವಾ,ವೆ &ಾF ೊಂFದ\ಲcೆ. ನನE ೆಲಸ ೆO ಸಂಬಂHದAvÉ cಾಖ$ಾGಗಳನುE ಮತುT ನನE ಸ]ಯನುE ೕಜ, &ಾF ಅವ5ೇ ೆಲಸವನುE /ೋF ೊಳ:ವ ºÁUÉ &ಾF ೊಂFರು?ಾT5ೆ. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 ಆದ\ಂದ ?ಾವeಗಳ ನನE Nೕ$ೆ hತೂ &ಾF ಹಣ ಸುೆ &ಾF ನಕ cಾಖ$ೆಗಳ ಸೃ~1H ೊಂಡು ನನE ಹ?ೆAೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂhH ನನೆ Cೕಸ &ಾF ಹಣ ವಾ,ವೆ &ಾF ೊಂಡು ನನE£ÀÄß &ಾರ ಾಸ•ಗಳನುE ?ೋH ನನE cಾಖ$ಾGಗಳನುE [ತುT ೊಂಡು ನನೆ @ೕವ ;ೆದ ೆ >ಾ[ ನನE ªÉÄÃ¯É ಹ$ೆೆ ಯGEHದವರ =ರುದI ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರಮa, ನನE ;ಾವ =ಶ)/ಾಥ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತ5ಾಗzÀ, ಶಂಕ5ೇೌಡ, ಅ"$ಾಷ, =ಜಯಕು&ಾ' ಮತುT =ೕರಭದ , ತಲQಾ' ಅವರ Nೕ$ೆ ಾನೂನು ೕ?ಾA PÀæªÀÄ ಜರುgಸ;ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮa ೇ9 ೊಳ:?ೆTೕ/ೆ. ¢£ÁAPÀ; 16/07/2024 " In the entire complaint as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no allegation against these petitioners. They are said to be the friends of the brother-in- law of the complainant or close to the wife. All the allegations are against the brother-in-law and the wife. All that the complaint narrates is that the wife, brother-in-law and his friends have all indulged in the act of making the petitioner unconscious and trying to hatch a conspiracy to kill him. There is nothing worth the ingredient in the complaint for permitting the investigation even in the case at hand. 8. During the pendency of the petition, the Investigating Officer has de-frozen the account of the petitioners and therefore, the said grievance also is no longer in subsistence today. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024 9. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, finding no allegations against these petitioners, permitting further investigation even would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) FIR registered in crime No.293/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the IPC stands quashed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA JY List No.: 19 Sl No.: 38 CT:SNN