- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35766 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10693 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVA R., S/O. RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HOSARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA. 2. NATARAJA M, S/O. MAHESH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT HOSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KIRANKUMAR H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, BILIKERE PS HUNSUR REPRESENTED BY GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MANJU K., S/O KRISHNA SHETTY HOSARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35766 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2025 HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.31/2023 OF CR.NO.262/2022 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL AND JMFC, HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504, 324 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.31/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, as projected in the charge-sheet, is that the father of the present petitioners, namely Ramashetty, allegedly threw a stone recklessly towards the complainant’s house under the pretext of chasing a chicken. When the complainant questioned the said Ramashetty and sought an explanation, contending that the stone thrown could - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35766 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2025 have caused serious injury, a verbal altercation ensued between the two families. Subsequently, on 08.09.2022, it is alleged that the present petitioners, who are the children of the said Ramashetty, confronted the complainant when he had gone to a nearby shop. A quarrel is stated to have taken place, which allegedly escalated into an assault by the petitioners on the complainant. Based on this incident, the complainant lodged a report, leading to registration of a crime, and after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the final report. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the averments made in the petition, has vehemently contended that the case registered against the petitioners is false and frivolous. He submits that there is an unexplained delay of about ten days in lodging the complaint, which, according to him, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Learned counsel would further submit that even if the allegations in the complaint and the materials in the charge- sheet are taken at their face value, there is no sufficient material warranting prosecution of the petitioners. He would - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35766 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2025 urge that the continuation of criminal proceedings, in the absence of prima facie evidence, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, he seeks quashing of the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.31/2023. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on the wound certificate and other documents collected during investigation, would submit that the Investigating Officer has meticulously examined the complaint, recorded the statements of witnesses, and has rightly filed the charge-sheet. He would argue that the materials on record disclose the commission of cognizable offences and make out a prima facie case against the petitioners, thereby justifying the prosecution. He would, therefore, contend that this Court, at the threshold, ought not to interfere with the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, and upon careful perusal of the charge-sheet papers, this Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint, coupled with the wound - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35766 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2025 certificate produced, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. Though the injuries reflected in the wound certificate are simple in nature, they nevertheless support the complainant’s version of the incident and, at this stage, lend credence to the prosecution case. Whether the prosecution will ultimately be able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. 6. This Court is mindful that its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the complaint or charge-sheet, on the face of it, does not disclose any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious. The mere fact that there is some delay in lodging the complaint, or that the petitioners dispute the correctness of the allegations, cannot, at this preliminary stage, justify quashing of the proceedings when the materials collected by the Investigating Officer disclose a triable case. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out any ground warranting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35766 CRL.P No. 10693 of 2025 interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this juncture. The petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45