- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2281 CRL.P No. 200437 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200437 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MAHANTAPPA S/O MAGATAPPA KORABAL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.279, HEROOR (B) VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI–585265. 2. SHAMBAI W/O MAHANTAPPA KORABAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. H.NO.279, HEROOR (B) VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585265. 3. RESHMA D/O MAHANTAPPA KORABAL, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. H.NO.279, HEROOR (B) VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585265. 4. KAVITA D/O MAHANTAPPA KORABAL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2281 CRL.P No. 200437 of 2025 R/O. H.NO.279, HEROOR (B) VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585265. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH, FERHATABA POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, (REPRESENTING BY LEARNED, ADDL. S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI-585105). 2. MAREMMA W/O SOMARAY SINNUR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. HEROOR (B) VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585265. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.116 OF 2024 AT FERHATABAD PS IN KALABURAGI CITY REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF BNS 2023, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2281 CRL.P No. 200437 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the registration of FIR in Crime No.116/2024 by the respondent police, approached this Court seeking to quash the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that the complainant was residing near the house of Mahantappa S/o Magathappa Kurabala. The daughter of said Mahantappa, who is arrayed as accused No.1 and the son of the complainant were loving each other and decided to marry. The accused No.1 threatened the complainant that he would not give his daughter for marriage with the son of the complainant. It is further stated that accused No.1 had quarreled several times about the said fact. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2281 CRL.P No. 200437 of 2025 3. On 28.09.2024, at about 8.00 p.m., after having dinner, when the complainant was walking in front of the house, accused Nos.1 and 2 and their daughters, namely, Reshma and Kavitha, in furtherance of common intention to assault the complainant, the accused No.1 started scolding the complainant by using filthy language and started assaulting her with the hands. In the meantime, accused No.2 also assaulted her by abusing in a filthy language. Reshma, who is arrayed as accused No.3, kicked the complainant on her stomach and accused No.4 assaulted her all over the body. The matter was pacified by the intervention of the villagers. Therefore, she lodges a complaint. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.116/2014 for the offences stated supra. 4. Heard Sri.Ravi Bheemsingh Chawar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the registration of FIR on the basis of a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2281 CRL.P No. 200437 of 2025 complaint of the complainant, did not disclose the actual ingredients of the offences. In fact, the complainant made certain allegations that she was assaulted by the petitioners. However, no medical report regarding injury was obtained. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. 6. It is further submitted that, the petitioner No.1 had filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 and four others in Crime No.115/2024. The present complaint is filed as retaliation knowingly well that the petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint on 28.09.2024. Therefore, the FIR has to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State vehemently justified the registration of the FIR and contended that the overt-act of each accused has been explained properly by the complainant. Merely because, the petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint against the present complainant and her family members prior to this incident, does not mean that the incident had not at all taken place. Moreover, that may not be the criteria to grant the relief as prayed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2281 CRL.P No. 200437 of 2025 for in the petition. There is a prima facie case made out against these petitioners. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, the complainant has specifically contended in her complaint that accused No.1 had scolded and assaulted her. The over-act of other accused has been described in the said complaint and it was the case and the counter case. There are allegations and counter allegations made against each other. Such being the case, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioners have not made out a case to quash the proceedings. 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN, CT:PK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41