- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4386 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. GHOUSE LAJAM .K S/O PAKRUDDIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.81, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, LALAJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030 (AS PER CHARGESHEET) 2. FARHAN .K W/O GHOUSE LAJAM K, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.81, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, LALAJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030 (AS PER CHARGESHEET) 3. SHAHISTA BANU .K D/O GHOUSE LAJAM .K, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.81, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, LALAJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030 (AS PER CHARGESHEET) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 4. SAMIYUN B W/O PAKRUDDIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.81, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, LALAJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030 (AS PER CHARGESHEET) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUMATHI PAULIN M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AUDUGODI POLICE (THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) BANGALORE-560001 2. SMT. RADHA M W/O LATE N.C. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.80, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, LALAJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030 (AS PER COMPLAINT) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.VISHWANATH.H.M, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.20377/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AUDUGODI POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506 AND 509 R/W 34 OF IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20377/2019 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (arising out of Cr.No.306/2018 of Adugodi PS), for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 509 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that they are innocent to the alleged offences and falsely framed by respondent No.2. The averments of the complaint does not attract Sections 504, 506, 509 r/w Section 34 IPC. In the complaint, names of the accused and their overt acts are not forthcoming. There is delay of one month in filing the complaint. Respondent No.2 is a highly influential person. Petitioner No.1 is a reputed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 businessman running a construction business. He is suffering from ill health. Petitioner No.2 is his wife. She is suffering from Hepatitis-B. Petitioner No.3 is their daughter studying in final year MBA. Petitioner No.4 is mother of petitioner No.1 and aged 74 years. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and hence, the petition. 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision in Madhushree Datta Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (Madhushree Datta)1 4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that petitioners are the neighbours of complainants. The complaint averments reveal that they are harassed and abused by the petitioners using abusive words and indulged in their character assassination. They also block the entrance of 1 (2025)2 SCR 197: 2025 INSC 105 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 complainants and give threat of filing complaints. They also claim that police will not take any action against them. Even though earlier also they filed complaints, no action was taken. The concerned police also abused them. Based on the complaint, case is registered and after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. It makes out a strong prima facie case. In order to prove the allegations, prosecution should be given opportunity to lead evidence and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. Thus, petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them contending that a false complaint is filed and there is delay in filing the complaint. Petitioner No.1 is a businessmen, petitioner No.2 is suffering from ill health and petitioner No.3 is studying in MBA and petitioner No.4 is mother of petitioner No.1 and aged 74 years. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 7. It is not in dispute that petitioners, complainant and her family are neighbours. It appears since 10 years, their relationship has soared. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners are harassing them. They park the vehicles and block their way. Hours together they indulge in abusing them using vulgar words. They also challenge the complainant to approach anyone, since nobody can do anything to them. 8. The concerned police have conducted investigation on these allegations and filed charge sheet. Apart from the complainant, her son Shashi Reddy is an eye witness to the incident. There are specific allegations against the petitioners that since 10 years they are being harassed. It is alleged that even though earlier complaints were given against the petitioners, the concerned police did not take any action. With regard to incident dated 29.11.2018, complainant who is aged 64 years has filed complaint on 26.12.2018. Of course there is delay in filing the complaint, which is required to be explained at the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31682 CRL.P No. 4386 of 2023 trial. In the light of the prima facie material placed on record, it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings even on the ground that petitioner No.2 is suffering from some ill health, petitioner No.3 is a student and petitioner No.4 is an aged women. Prosecution should be given opportunity to prove the allegations at the trial. 9. In the result, petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e- mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45