Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45685 (KAR)

SRI. N. PURUSHOTHAMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/5806/2022 · 2025-02-18

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5806 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. N. PURUSHOTHAMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SON OF LATE S. J. NATARAJU, TYPIST COPYIST, 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MADHUGIRI - 572 132. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT "SRI HARIHARSH NILAYA", 4TH CROSS, BASAVESWARA EXTENSION, KYATHSANDRA, TUMAKURU - 572 104, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY MADHUGIRI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 2. SRI. B. SATHYANARAYANCHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF LATE BASAVARAJACHARI, PROCESS SERVER, IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MADHUGIRI - 572 132, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDENT AT SRIRAMANAGARA, OPPOSITE SRIRAMA TEMPLE, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.MANJULADEVI R KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2928/2021 (PCR.NO.109/2017) MORE PARTICULARLY THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, TUMKURU AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF ALL THE CHARGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the sole accused in C.C.No.2928/2021 (PCR No.109/2017) on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Madhugiri, Tumkuru, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR 109/2017 before the trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 10 alleging commission of offence under Sections 323, 324, 353, 504, 506 of IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the FIR was registered in Cr.No.203/17 of Madhugiri Police Station. Investigation was undertaken and ‘B' report was filed by the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court granted an opportunity to respondent No.2 to file objections to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 'B' report. Respondent No.2 filed his sworn statements as PW.1 and examined PWs.2 to 4 as eye witnesses. On the basis of these materials, the trial Court rejected the ‘B’ report and took cognizance of the offence under Sections 504, 506 of IPC against the petitioner and issued summons to him. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. 4. Heard Sri.Jagadish Baliga.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and Smt.Manjuladevi R.Kamodolli, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" 6. My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: R E A S O N S 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 is in the habit of filing false complaint. As a result of such false complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was ordered to be dismissed from service. In an administrative appeal before this Court, the dismissal of the petitioner was set aside and he was reinstated. Even though respondent No.2 had undertaken not to file any false complaint, inspite of that, he is in the habit of filing such complaints. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance even for offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the complainant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 was examined before the Trial Court and 3 independent witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident. Under such circumstances, there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence against the petitioner. 9. On perusal of the materials on record, the complainant has made specific allegations against all the accused including the petitioner alleging commission of the offences under Sections 323, 325, 354, 504, 506 of IPC. The material on record discloses that there are several litigations between the parties and they are at logger heads. The same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The Trial Court after recording the evidence on record examined the complainant as PW.1 and eye witness as PWs.2 to 4, took cognizance of offence under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. The witnesses have spoken to about the offence committed by the accused. It was taken into consideration by the trial Court. The same cannot be said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7423 CRL.P No. 5806 of 2022 as without application of mind. The procedural lapse in taking cognizance of offence will not go beneath the matter. Since there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings. The petitioner will be at liberty to take defence before the trial Court during trial, but he is not entitled for any relief in the petition. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31