- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200801 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN 1 . SMT.SHRUTI W/O LINGRAJ PATIL ATTUR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINNER R/O H.NO. 10-2-180/1, S.B TEMPLE ROAD NEAR GOOD LUCK HOTEL ANANDNAGAR, KALABURAGI – 585103. 2 . KASHINATH S/O SHIVASHANKRAPPA PYARSABADI AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO. 10-2-180/1, S.B TEMPLE ROAD NEAR GOOD LUCK HOTEL ANAND NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103 3 . SHASHANK S/O KASHINATH PYARSABADI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO. 10-2-180/1, S.B TEMPLE ROAD NEAR GOOD LUCK HOTEL ANAND NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 103 4 . SUPRIYA W/O KASHINATH PYARSABADI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O H.NO. 10-2-180/1, S.B TEMPLE ROAD Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 NEAR GOOD LUCK HOTEL ANAND NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 103 ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT.ANURADHA DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION BAZAR TOWN PS KALABURAGI CITY REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH KALABURAGI-585 102 2 . LINGRAJ S/O BASAVARAJU PATIL ATTUR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC. TRUSTEE, BASAVAKALYAN EDUCATION TRUST, R/O H.NO. 7758/26 NEAR JBK SCHOOL, VIDYASHREE COLONY BASAVAKALYAN DIST BIDAR-585 326. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-B1 THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DT. 05.09.2023 OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 323, 326, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.161/2022 OF STATION BAZAAR POLICE STATION KALABURAGI ON PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO. 455/2022 AND FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JR.DIV. AND PRL. JMFC KALABURAGI, IN C.C NO. 5932/2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC in C.C No.5932/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 are husband and wife. Petitioner No.1 is the only daughter to her parents and she has one brother, namely, Shashank. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had taken place six years ago. They were living together cordially for a short period. Thereafter, she was being ill-treated by the respondent No.2 on one or the other pretext. When petitioner No.1 had informed the said facts to her parents, her parents advised her to go to Kalaburagi. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 was advised to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 take proper care of respondent No.2 by the elders and well-wishers. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 had taken care of respondent No.2 properly for two months. Thereafter again he started harassing her. Therefore, she left the matrimonial house and joined her parents’ house. 3. Such being the fact, on 05.04.2021, around 3.40 p.m., when petitioner No.1, her younger brother and parents were residing in the house, the respondent No.2 entered inside the house and instructed the petitioner No.1 that he would take Shiven, who is his elder son. Petitioner No.1 refused to send her son by stating the reason that there was Covid-19 and asked him to wait till a certain period. The respondent No.2 having refused to accept her advice started moving by taking Shiven along with him. When petitioner No.1 obstructed respondent No.2 from moving further, under the said scuffle, he assaulted her with khada, consequently, she sustained bleeding injuries. It is further stated that the younger brother of petitioner No.1 had also been beaten up and sustained injuries from the respondent No.2. A complaint came to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 be registered on 05.04.2021 before Station Bazar Police Station. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.30/2021 against Sri.Lingaraj P, who is the husband of petitioner No.1. 4. Heard Smt.Anuradha Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Venugopal M.S., learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 on 05.04.2021. When the case was pending against respondent No.2, it is alleged that respondent No.2 had visited the house of the petitioners on 06.10.2022 on the pretext that he wanted to visit and see the children. At that moment, he had been assaulted by the petitioners, which is concocted and created a story in order to overcome the earlier complaint lodged by the petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 6. It is further submitted that the complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 and respondent police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in order to facilitate the respondent No.2 illegally. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Harayana v. Bajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 is squarely applicable to the case on hand and the order of taking cognizance against the petitioners in Crime No.161/2022 has to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for petitioners prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 is a resident of Basavakalyan. There was a dispute between himself and his wife, who is petitioner No.1 in respect of matrimonial issues. The petitioner No.1 has not allowed the respondent No.2 to see the children and not even allowed to talk over the phone or through a video call. When the respondent No.2 demanded for divorce, accused No.3-Shashank, being the younger brother of petitioner No.1 had assaulted the respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 Therefore, he lodged a third complaint before the Principal JMFC at Kalaburagi and the matter was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation. 8. It is further submitted that there are serious allegations made against the petitioners and the wound certificate would indicate that respondent No.2 had sustained injury at the hands of the petitioners. Such being the case, quashing the proceedings cannot be entertained. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays to reject the petition. 9. Similarly, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and prays to reject the petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are wife and husband, respectively. The couple had two children. They cordially lived for a certain period. Thereafter, there was a difference of opinion between them. As such, they were separated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 from each other. The petitioner No.1 was living along with her parents. There was a constant quarrel between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, she lodges a complaint against him before Station Bazaar Police Station in Crime No.30/2021 on 05.04.2021 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 324 and 504 of IPC. 11. It is further submitted that respondent No.2, on 06.10.2022, that is during pendency of the case, he stated to have visited the house of petitioner No.1 and stated that he would take away one of his sons, namely, Shiven, along with him. When it was objected by the petitioner No.1, it is stated that a quarrel had taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. It is stated in the private complaint that accused No.2 assaulted the complainant on his leg with a wooden stick and caused injuries. The overt-act of each of the petitioners has been mentioned in the FIR. 12. Be that as it may, on careful reading of the averments of the private complaint, which indicates that respondent No.2 had filed this case with an ulterior motive to use - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 coercive method not only to restore his matrimonial life but also to overcome the earlier complaint filed against him by petitioner No.1. 13. In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V.RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.15 as under: “15. The position of law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court that in order to entertain a challenge to the FIR, charge-sheet or an order taking cognizance, all that has to be seen is, whether from a bare reading of the charge- sheet, the ingredients of the sections charged therein are being prima facie made out or not. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , wherein it was held that : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the 1 (2025) 3 SCC 475 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (emphasis supplied) 14. On careful reading of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it indicates that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 15. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and on with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. In the present case, the respondent No.2 is husband of petitioner No.1. There is a case and counter case in respect of the incident allegedly happened when the respondent No.2 had visited the house of the petitioner No.1. In fact, when he allegedly visited the house of the petitioner No.1, matrimonial case was pending before the competent Court. Moreover, no cordial relationship was - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5102 CRL.P No. 200801 of 2024 existed between the husband and the wife. Hence, there is a possibility of registering a false case in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the petition. 17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The order of taking cognizance dated 05.09.2023 arising out of Crime No.161/2022 of respondent police and further proceedings in C.C No.5932/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4