- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32152 CRL.P No. 11031 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11031 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. THRIVIKRAM SINGH SON OF SRI. DAYARAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. SRI. DAYARAM SINGH, SON OF LATE GOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 3. SMT. VASANTHA BAI, WIFE OF SRI. DAYARAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SMT. POORNIMA SINGH, D/O. DAYARAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.252, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, NEAR RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AGNIHOTRI KESHAV RANGANATHACHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NANDINI SINGH W/O. SRI. THRIVIKRAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32152 CRL.P No. 11031 of 2025 R/O, NO.1047, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 008. 2. MASTER SHIVARAJENDRA PRATHAP SINGH, S/O. SRI. THRIVIKRAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, (AS MINOR GUARDIAN AND MOTHER REPRESENTED BY SMT. NANDINI SINGH) RESIDING AT NO. 1047, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2022 ON MAIN PETITION PASSED BY JMFC-II COURT, MYSURU CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN U/S 12(1) OF THE PWDV ACT 2005, BEFORE THE JMFC -II COURT, MYSURU AND THUS ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed under section 12(1) of the Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and is totally misconceived. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32152 CRL.P No. 11031 of 2025 2. The petitioners themselves have candidly disclosed that the learned Magistrate, while partly allowing the application filed under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, directed them to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondents towards securing alternate accommodation. The said amount was ordered to be paid within a period of three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioners preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.134/2022. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on account of non-compliance with the conditional order. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners pursued the matter by filing a criminal revision petition before this Court in Crl.R.P. No.1007/2023. This Court, upon a detailed examination of the merits, dismissed the revision petition by order dated 27.03.2024. The said order of this Court was further challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.37256/2024, which came to be dismissed on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32152 CRL.P No. 11031 of 2025 13.09.2024, thereby confirming the concurrent findings of the learned Magistrate as well as this Court. 4. Despite the matter having attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners have once again approached this Court by filing the present petition questioning the very same order of the learned Magistrate dated 29.01.2022. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the present petition is a clear abuse of the process of law, as the petitioners are seeking to reagitate an issue which already stands concluded. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal in Crl.A. No.2689/2025 is wholly misplaced and has no application to the facts of the present case. Once the order of the Magistrate directing payment of compensation has been upheld by both this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no indulgence can - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32152 CRL.P No. 11031 of 2025 be granted by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Though this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs for repeatedly abusing the judicial process, in order to avoid imposing any additional financial burden upon the petitioners, who have yet to comply with the subsisting order of the learned Magistrate, this Court refrains from doing so. Accordingly, the criminal petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK