- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10693 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. GIRISH A V S/O SRI VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. PRAMOD H R S/O SRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. AJAY H R S/O SRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.171, 2ND CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, KATRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU-560085 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, WOMEN POLICE STATION, BASAVANAGUDI WEST ZONE Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 BENGALURU-560070 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001 2. SMT USHA R W/O SRI RAMESH B R MAJOR IN AGE NO.103, 1ST FLOOR, ELEGANT SILVER OAK APARTMENT, SPENCER ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.V.VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.14792/2020 PENDING ON THE COURT OF XXXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.353,354,504,506,509 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICATATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.14792/2020 on the file of 37th Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 504, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC (arising out of Cr.No.39/2020 of Banashankari PS). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 to 3 have contended that based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant, the concerned police have registered case in Cr.No.39/2020 and after conducting investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.14792/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 504, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC. However, while taking cognizance the trial Court has simply affixed the signature to the typed matter. There is no application of mind. Initially, the complaint was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506, which are non-cognizable. However, the investigating officer has not secured the permission of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate and as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The ingredients of Section 354, 353 and 509 are not made out. A false complaint is filed in retaliation to the civil and criminal proceedings initiated against respondent No.2/complainant. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Behram Bomanji Dubash and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Behram Bomanji Dubash)1 (ii) S.L.Haleshappa Vs. The State by Lokayuktha Police and Anr. (S.L.Haleshappa)2 5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant contended that 1 2010 Crl.L.J 3963 2 Crl.P.No.10263/2021 Dt: 25.05.2022 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 respondent No.2/complainant is working as Account Superintendent, Deputy Controller (Finance South), BBMP since July 2015. Accused persons who are brothers are BBMP contractors. In this connection they came to be acquainted with respondent No.2/complainant. On 11.07.2020, respondent No.2/complainant filed complaint alleging that when their relationship was good, the accused persons have taken photographs of the respondent No.2/complainant and started forcing her to pass their bills illegally. When she refused to pass certain bills, as they have failed to pay ESI and PF of their workers and GST to the Government, accused persons started giving threat to her saying that they would publish her photographs as though respondent No.2/complainant is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 A.B.Girish. 5.1 Accused have also abused her and given threat to her life. They are in the habit of making lewd remarks against respondent No.2/complainant. Once, when she was proceeding with her brother-in-law and her two friends, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 accused persons tried to drag her and gave threat. They are also making allegations that respondent No.2/complainant is having illicit relationship with other contractors. They are preventing her from discharging her duties. 5.2 In fact on 09.06.2020, respondent No.2/complainant had filed a complaint with Basavanagudi Women P.S. Since, accused persons gave statements undertaking not to repeat, she withdrew the complaint and she was issued with endorsement dated 17.06.2020. However, after the said complaint was withdrawn, accused No.1 gave a complaint in Cr.No.174/2020 with Byadarahalli PS, alleging that respondent No.2/complainant demanded bribe from him and as a guarantee he has handed over his Innova car No.KA-41 MC 0036 and that unable to bear the harassment, he tried to commit suicide. 5.3 In order to force respondent No.2/complainant to pass the bills, accused persons are causing pressure on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 her. In fact on 17.06.2020, after she withdrew the complaint, the family members of accused Nos.1 to 3 viz., Mahalakshmi, Sharadamma, Boregowda, Sridhar and others assaulted her and in this connection, she filed a complaint in Cr.No.74/2020 of Banashankari PS. If any harm is caused to the respondent No.2/complainant or her family members, accused persons would be responsible. 5.4 Based on the complaint, concerned police registered case in Cr.No.39/2020 of Banashankari PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 504, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 3. There is prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2/complaianant is working in BBMP as accounts Superintendent, Deputy Controller (Finance-South) and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 accused No.1 to 3 who are brothers are BBMP contractors. Obviously, there was regular interactions between them since the bills of accused persons were required to be passed through the respondent No.2/complainant. Had they only had official relationship things would have been different. In the complaint and in her further statement respondent No.2/complainant has stated that there was close friendship between the respondent No.2/complainant, accused persons and their family members and they used to go for tour and other places and they have taken photographs of her with the accused persons. It is said familiarity breeds contempt. 8. There are allegations by the accused that respondent No.2/complainant was in the habit of demanding bribe and she went to the extent of retaining their Innova car No.KA-41 MC 0036 till payment of the bribe and that unable to bear the harassment, once accused No.1 tried to commit suicide. On the other hand, it is alleged by the respondent No.2/complainant that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 accused persons were giving threat by uploading photographs of her and also making allegations that she is having illicit relationship with contractors, etc. Once when she was traveling with her brother-in-law and two friends, the accused persons assaulted her and gave threat. These allegations and counter allegations indicate that the relationship between them was spoilt. 9. So far as the present complaint is concerned, it is alleged that in the background of the spoilt relationship between them, on 09.06.2020, she choose to file a complaint with Basavanagudi P.S. alleging assault, etc. It appears the concerned police called the accused and after they gave an undertaking that they would not repeat the same, respondent No.2/complainant did not press for the said complaint and withdrew it. On 17.06.2020, to this effect, the concerned police have issued endorsement to her. Respondent No.2/complainant submitted that after she withdrew the said complaint, the family members of accused persons i.e., Mahalakshmi, Sharadamma, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 Boregowda, Sridhar assaulted her and in that regard she has given complaint with Banashankari Police and case is registered in Cr.No.74/2020. 10. In this background, the respondent No.2/complainant chosen to file the present complaint. She has also given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. There are eye witnesses and also documentary evidence. In the statement of objections, the respondent No.2/complainant has also stated that she has filed a complaint against petitioners alleging defamation and cognizance is taken. In the light of strong prima facie case made out against the petitioners, it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 11. So far as allegations that there is no application of mind while taking cognizance. Vide order dated 07.11.2020, the trial Court has clearly stated that he has gone through the charge sheet and a prima facie case is made out and accordingly, taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and ordered for issue of summons. In fact accused have appeared before the trial Court and secured bail. After attending the Court for nearly two years, they have come up with this petition in the year 2022. 12. The contention of petitioners that initially the case was registered only for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and since they are non-cognizable offences, the investigating ought to have taken permission from the trial Court is not correct. Initially the case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 504, 506, 509 r/w Section 34 IPC. Therefore, there was no need for the investigating officer to seek permission of the trial Court to proceed with the investigation. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36465 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2022 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. 14. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) Respondent No.2/complainant The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35