- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102614 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MANJURILLAHI S/O. MOHAMMEDRAFIQ SHAMSHER, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 302/2, MUSLIM GALLI, MANIKWADI, GOKAK – 591 308. 2. TANVEER S/O. MOHAMMEDRAFIQ SHAMSHER, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 302/2, MUSLIM GALLI, MANIKWADI, GOKAK – 591 308. 3. SUMAYYA W/O. YASEENARAFAT SHAMSHER, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: 302/2, MUSLIM GALLI, MANIKWADI, GOKAK – 591 308. 4. NAGMA W/O. MANJURILLAHI SHAMSHER, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: 302/2, MUSLIM GALLI, MANIKWADI GOKAK – 591 308. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANWARALI D. NADAF, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GOKAK RURAL PS GOKAK, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD – 580 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.313/2015 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT IN GOKAK RURAL P.S. GOKAK AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED QUA THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 IN CC NO.2346/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 323, 353, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. AMONGST THE OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE GROUNDS RELIED IN THE AVERMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 praying to quash the entire complaint, FIR in Crime No.313/2015 and the entire proceedings in C.C. No.2346/2016 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak, registered for the offences punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 Sections 341, 323, 353, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.10.2015 when the police have received the information in respect of absconding accused/petitioner No.1, who is involved in Crime No.208/2015 as accused No.10, at about 21:00 hours, rushed to the house of the petitioners at Manikawadi village, at that time, accused Nos.2 to 4 quarreled with the police and asked as to why they are arresting accused No.1 and started to abuse in filthy language and restrained the complainant and other police personnel and objected them from discharging their official duty and caught hold the shirt of the complainant/police officer, beat him on the back side and threatened to take his life. The PSI filed the complaint on 31.10.2015 and based on that, a case came to be registered in Crime No.313/2015 of Gokak Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 504 and 506 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, charge- sheet has been filed for the said offences and a case has been registered in C.C. No.2346/2016 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak. The said FIR, complaint and the proceedings in the criminal case are sought to be quashed in the present petition by accused Nos.1 to 4. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the incident has taken place on 29.10.2015 at 9:00 pm and FIR came to be registered on 31.10.2015 at 2:00 pm and there is a delay in lodging the first information. Petitioner No.3 has filed a complaint against the police to the Superintendent of Police on 30.10.2015 and on coming to know about the same, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioners. He further contends that, if, really the incident has taken place, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 police ought to have registered a complaint immediately against the petitioners. The delay itself indicates that, to take revenge against the petitioners, as petitioner No.3 has filed a complaint against the Police before the Superintendent of Police, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioners. Subsequently, petitioner No.3 has filed a complaint on 31.10.2015 against the police official and it came to be registered in Gokak Rural Police Station Crime No.314/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the said Crime No.314/2015, the police filed ‘B’ report. The said ‘B’ report has been accepted and the order accepting ‘B’ report has been challenged by the petitioners and now the matter is remanded to the Magistrate to hear on ‘B’ report. On perusal of the charge-sheet, the offences alleged against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 504 and 506 are not attracted. On that point, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 i. Criminal Petition No.102259/2023 decided on 03.02.2015; ii. Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 600; iii. Crl.P. No.102076/2021 decided on 08.04.2023; iv. Crl.P. No.3768/2020 decided on 05.10.2020; v. Crl.P. No.6248/2024 decided on 21.08.2024; and vi. Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the case of the petitioners will come under guidelines 5 and 7 as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp.(1) 335. On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed to allow the petition. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent would contend that CW.6 to CW.13 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, out of them, CW.10 to 13 are the private witnesses and CW.6 to CW.9 are the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 Police Officials. The said eye-witnesses have specifically stated the act of the petitioners which attracts the offences alleged against them. Discharge application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. Chargesheet material shows prima facie case against the petitioners. There are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the chargesheet and the other materials placed on record. 8. The alleged incident has taken place on 29.10.2015 at about 9:00 PM in the house of the petitioners. On that day, PSI and other Police staff stated to have visited the house of the petitioners in order to arrest the petitioner No.1, who was accused in Crime No.208/2015 of Gokak Town Police Station and at that time, the petitioners stated to have objected and restrained the Police from discharging their official duty, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 assaulted the complainant and dragged his shirt and gave him life threat. If really, the said incident has taken place, the PSI and other Police staff who went to the house of the petitioners would have lodged the complaint against them immediately. The complainant/ PSI of Gokak Rural Police Station has filed a complaint only after two days i.e., on 31.10.2015. In the meantime, the petitioner No.3-Sumayya has lodged the complaint against the Police Official before the Superintend of Police on 30.10.2015. As the said complaint has been filed by the petitioner No.3 before Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, the complainant-PSI has received the said information. The said PSI has filed a complaint against the petitioner on 31.10.2015 and the said complaint has been registered in Crime No.313/2015. The delay in filing the said complaint has not been explained in the complaint. What is stated in the complaint is that the complainant has discussed with higher officials and thereafter, filed the complaint. The petitioner No.3 has lodged the complaint against the Police officials on 31.10.2015 and it came to be registered in Crime - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 No.314/2015 of Gokak Rural Police Station. The said complaint registered in Crime No.314/2015, also arises out of the same incident and it is a counter complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even though, both complaints registered in Crime Nos.313/2015 and 314/2015, a case and a counter case, the investigation has been done by different Investigating Officers in violation of the Circular dated 21.06.2013 issued by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, which is extracted at para No.11 of the order passed in Crl.P. No.6248/2024. The PSI has filed a complaint on 31.10.2015 against the petitioners and the case is registered in Crime No.313/2015, prior to that the petitioner No.3 has filed a complaint against the Police officials before Superintend of Police, Belagavi on 30.10.2015. It appears that on coming to know of the complaint filed by petitioner No.3 before Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, the PSI of Gokak Rural Police Station has filed a complaint against the petitioners. It appears that in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 order to take revenge against the petitioners, as they have filed complaint against the Police officials before Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, a complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. There was no valid reason for not filing the complaint by PSI of Gokak Town Police Station immediately after the alleged incident against the petitioners. In order to take revenge against the petitioners, as petitioner No.3 has made a complaint to PSI of Gokak Rural Police Station and filed a complaint against the petitioners. In the complaint filed by petitioner No.3 registered in Crime No.314/2015, Investigating Officer has filed B - Report. Therefore, the act of filing of complaint and filing of chargesheet against the petitioners is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others stated supra the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines, out of them, Guideline No.7 reads thus: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4917 CRL.P No. 102614 of 2024 “(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Considering all these aspects, the proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law and required to be quashed. In the result, the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.2346/2016 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak, are quashed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv upto para 5 PJ-para 6 to end CT-ASC