- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12144 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI DEVARAJU SON OF LATE MUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANTESHALLI, NELENURU MAJARE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. 2. SRI RAMANNA SON OF LATE MUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT GANTESHALLI, NELENURU MAJARE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. 3. SMT. VANAJAKSHAMMA WIFE OF RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT GANTESHALLI, NELENURU MAJARE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. 4. SMT. BHARATHI WIFE OF DEVARAJU, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT GANTESHALLI, NELENURU MAJARE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. 5. SRI SHASHIDARA SON OF DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT GANTESHALLI, NELENURU MAJARE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. 6. SMT. SUKANYA WIFE OF SHASHIDARA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT GANTESHALLI, NELENURU MAJARE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. 7. SRI. SUDEEPA SON OF ANANDA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KALLENAHALLI, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 BY HULIYAR POLICE STATION, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK REPRESENTED THROUGH SPP, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. PALAKSHAIAH SON OF BAIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT OBALAPURA HAGALAVADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION/PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C.NO.739/2025 ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 115(2), 351(2), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 190 OF BNS 2023 IN CRIME NO.13/2025 OF FIRST RESPONDENT HULIYAR POLICE STATION, AS PER ANNEXURE A TO C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 This petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 739/2025, arising out of Crime No. 13/2025, registered by Huliyar Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 118(1), 118(2), 352, and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the averments in the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, the dispute relates to a parcel of land which, it is alleged, had been under the cultivation of the complainant’s father, Bairappa, for over 57 years. It is further alleged that the relatives of the complainant had constructed a residential house on the said land with their permission. The complainant contends that when they requested the petitioners to remove the construction, a scuffle ensued on 13.01.2025 at approximately 9:30 a.m., when the complainant’s family members visited the disputed site. It is claimed that during this altercation, the complainant’s family members were subjected to physical assault, verbal abuse, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 threats to their life, thereby giving rise to the registration of Crime No. 13/2025. 3. The petitioners, through their counsel, contend that it was, in fact, the second respondent who had assaulted the petitioners, which had earlier led to the registration of Crime No. 11/2025. The charge sheet in the said case has since been filed in C.C. No. 738/2025. The petitioners’ grievance is premised on the assertion that the second respondent, acting in retaliation, lodged a false complaint against them the very next day, intending to falsely implicate them in the ongoing dispute. It is further submitted that a partition suit concerning the same property is still pending adjudication before the competent civil court. The petitioners argue that the second complaint, which resulted in the registration of Crime No. 13/2025 and subsequent filing of the charge sheet, does not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners, and therefore, the proceedings in the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 criminal case ought to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor, relying on the available records, pointed out that the doctor’s statements and wound certificates are not annexed to the charge sheet materials. She further submitted that, in view of the facts constituting a case and countercase, no indulgence can be granted at this stage. 5. Having carefully heard the counsels on record and considered the charge sheet and other relevant materials produced by the petitioners, this Court observes that, although the charge sheet appears incomplete, the factual matrix indicates that both parties acknowledge the occurrence of the incident. In situations involving a case and countercase, the Court must examine the proceedings in tandem to determine the respective roles of the parties as aggressors and victims. Selective quashing of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38286 CRL.P No. 12144 of 2025 proceedings in such circumstances is impermissible, as it would result in an incomplete adjudication of the dispute. 6. Be that as it may, in the absence of the wound certificates and other medical evidence from the investigating officer in the charge sheet materials, this Court finds that no judicial indulgence can be extended at this stage. The completeness of the investigation and proper presentation of evidence are essential for the trial court to make a fair and informed determination. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing considerations, the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.739/2025 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK