- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10290 CRL.P No. 102933 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102933 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DASHARATH S/O. RAJENDRAGIRI BAVANNAVAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC, R/O. GURUWAR PETE, KITTUR NOW AT MALLAPUR, KITTUR, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. KITTUR-591 115. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (KITTUR SUB-DIVISION CIRCLE KITTUR PS), R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-5. 2. SHOBHA W/O. RAJENDRAGIRI BAVANNAVAR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GURUWAR PETE, KITTUR, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. KITTUR-591 115. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN C.C. NO.673/2023 ARISING IN KITTUR P.S. CRIME NO.50/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 341, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. KITTUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10290 CRL.P No. 102933 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.673 of 2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Kittur, arising out of Crime No.50 of 2022 registered by Kittur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504 & 506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the first informant. Only for the said reason, a false criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. He submits that civil dispute has now ended in a decree in OS No.112 of 2022. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the first informant is the mother of the petitioner here. She has alleged that on 18.03.2022 at about 05.00 p.m, petitioner, who came home, had allegedly asked her to transfer - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10290 CRL.P No. 102933 of 2025 all the property, which stood in his father's name, in his name. When the first informant refused for the same on the ground that he has got two sisters, the petitioner allegedly abused her using filthy language and also assaulted her with a piece of wood and caused simple injuries to her. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. CW1 is the injured witness and CW.4 and CW.5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident in question. CW4 is the sister of the petitioner and CW5 is an independent eyewitness, who had rescued the first informant when petitioner was assaulting her. Merely for the reason that there is a civil dispute between the parties is pending the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed, when material on record makes out a prima-facie case against accused. 5. In the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely for the reason that a criminal proceeding is pending between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to 1 (2002) 1 SCC 555 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10290 CRL.P No. 102933 of 2025 quash the criminal proceedings if it is found that prima facie case exists against the accused. In the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.17 has observed as follows: “17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Kamaladevi (Supra) in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & others2, in para no. 23 has observed as follows; “23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, 2 2025 INSC 818 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10290 CRL.P No. 102933 of 2025 involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.” 7. In view of the aforesaid aspects, I am of the opinion that since there is prima-facie case as against the petitioner, it is not a fit case, wherein this Court needs to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40