- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1579 CRL.P No. 103446 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103446 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: KUMARASWAMY S/O. ADIVAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. AMINGAD WARD NO.1, HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AMENGAD POLICE STATION, RPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. 2. KAVITA D/O. ADIVAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HELP, R/O. WARD NO. 11, AMINGAD, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN AMENGAD POLICE STATION CRIME NO.53/2022 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS S.C. NO.64/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 109, 307 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:51 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1579 CRL.P No. 103446 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner – accused No.1, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner – accused No.1 is an advocate by profession and the brother of respondent No.2. There is a civil dispute regarding the partition of properties, wherein the petitioner is the plaintiff, and respondent No.2 is defendant No.4 in OS No.93/2015. The petitioner allegedly used to monitor the movements of the complainant by standing near a kirana shop. On 1.5.2022, at around 5:00 p.m., when the complainant and her friend were returning from the market and passing through Mannur Oni, accused No.2 chased them with an axe (macchu) and assaulted the complainant, resulting in grievous injuries. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he instigated accused No.2 to assault the complainant, assuring him that, as an advocate, he would protect him in the court of law. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State. 4. It is admitted that petitioner – accused No.1 is the brother of respondent No.2, and the suit concerning the partition of joint family properties is pending. The assault that resulted in grievous injuries to the complainant was carried out by accused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1579 CRL.P No. 103446 of 2022 No.2. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he instigated accused No.2 to assault the complainant. The FIR mentions that petitioner – accused No.1 watched the complainant’s movements near the kirana shop, and on his instructions, accused No.2 assaulted the complainant. However, in her subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), the complainant stated that her earlier statement regarding accused No.1’s presence at the spot was made out of anger and anguish, and that he was not actually present at the scene. Additionally, the eyewitness to the incident has not stated that accused No.1 was present during the incident. 5. The only allegation against accused No.1 is that he instigated accused No.2 to assault the complainant. However, there is no direct or indirect evidence to substantiate this claim. It is undisputed that accused No.1 was not present at the scene of the incident. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that accused No.1 instigated accused No.2 to commit the assault. The charge sheet material does not contain any evidence, either oral or documentary, to substantiate the claim that accused No.2 assaulted the complainant at the instance of accused No.1. Thus, the continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.1 based solely on the vague allegations made by respondent No.2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1579 CRL.P No. 103446 of 2022 ii) The impugned proceedings in SC No.64/2022 pending on the file of the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.1 is hereby quashed. iii) The learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed against accused No.2 on the available material on record without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. The observation made, if any, in this order is only for the purpose of this petition. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61