- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:710 CRL.P No. 102156 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102156 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. BILAL S/O. ABDULRAUF ANGOLKAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. # 580, KURBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. MISS. QAMARTAJ ABDULRAUF ANGOLKAR AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. # 580, KURBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH MARKET PS, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. MRS. HEENAKOUSAR IRSHADAHMED ANGOLKAR AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAMNAGAR, VADDARWADI, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVIRAJ C.PATIL, SRI. SHRIPRASAD J.JOSHI, SMT. VIDYASHREE I.SULDHAL AND SRI.PRASHANT S.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEER DATED 13.03.2019 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN MARKET P.S. BELAGAVI, CRIME NO.194/2018 U/S 341, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC, REGISTERED AS CC NO.386/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II JMFC, BELAGAVI AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS INITIATED PURSUANT THERETO. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:710 CRL.P No. 102156 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in relation to the property dispute, when the complainant approached the accused, at that time, the petitioners wrongfully restrained, and abused in filthy language, and assaulted her with hands. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 – State. 4. The alleged incident had taken place on 2.5.2018. On the very same day, the respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR in Crime No.195/2018 alleging that the petitioners, who are accused No.2 and 3 along with other accused assaulted CW6 i.e. brother of the complainant. 5. In the said crime, the police after the investigation submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners herein, who are the accused Nos.2 and 3 therein and other accused challenged the very same proceedings before this Court in Crl.P No.102155/2019. This Court vide order dated 17.1.2025 quashed the proceedings by observing as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:710 CRL.P No. 102156 of 2019 “On perusal of the first information report and the statements of witnesses, it is noted that all the accused allegedly assaulted CW-6 with a stick on his head. However, there are four accused, and it is highly improbable for all four to have assaulted CW-6 with one stick. There is no specific overt act attributed to any particular accused indicating how and in what manner each assaulted CW-6. 6. The father of petitioner No.1 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 537/2018 against respondent No.2 and others for permanent injunction, and an order of temporary injunction is currently in operation. Initially, the trial court rejected the application for a temporary injunction, but on appeal, the District Court, vide order dated 16.07.2018, granted an order of temporary injunction. The District Court observed that there was no substantial or justifiable material to support how the photographs, allegedly showing the injuries sustained by CW-6, were taken on 03.04.2018. 7. Although the incident is alleged to have occurred on 02.05.2018 or 03.05.2018, the photographs do not align with the injuries sustained by CW-6. Further, the Wound Certificate indicates that the injuries sustained by CW-6 are simple in nature. In the absence of a specific overt act and given that the allegations are omnibus and general, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. 8. The impugned FIR lodged by respondent No.2 appears to be motivated by malice and lacks probable cause. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.” Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:710 CRL.P No. 102156 of 2019 ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.386/2019 pending on the file of the learned II JMFC, Belgavi, insofar as it relates to the accused Nos.1 and 2, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0