- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52101 WP No. 8063 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 8063 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KRISHNA L S/O. LATE LINGAIAH, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.378/1, GROUND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN ROAD, NAGENDRA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. LINGARAJU, S/O. LATE LINGAIAH, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING NO.378/1, 6TH MAIN ROAD, NAGENDRA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1 R2 - VIDE ORDER DATED 09.12.2025 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GIRINAGAR POLICE / 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01/02/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52101 WP No. 8063 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Notice issued to respondent No.2 has been returned unclaimed. Hence, service is held sufficient. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the material on record. 3. This petition is preferred praying to quash the proceedings arising out of Crime No.38/2024 of Girinagar Police Station pending in CC No.6978/24 on the file of the XXXII Additional CMM, Bengaluru. 4. FIR is registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, brother of the petitioner, alleging that, on 01.02.2024 at about 11.30 A.M., when the BBMP Officials had visited the property for a spot inspection to prepare the joint Katha, the petitioner herein wrongfully restrained and abused him and assaulted with a stone on his head. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52101 WP No. 8063 of 2025 5. FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 506 of IPC. While filing the charge sheet, Section 324 of IPC was deleted since the Complainant gave a further statement that he has not sustained any injuries on account of the assault with stone. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire allegations are false and due to the property dispute, the second respondent, none other than the elder brother of the petitioner, has come up with a false case. He submitted that subsequently, Katha was entered in the joint name of the petitioner and Respondent No.2 and therefore, contended that the ingredients of the offence now alleged against the petitioner are not made out. In support of said the contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.103871 of 2022 disposed of on 14.09.2023 (Pushpavati Medar vs. The State of Karnataka and Another). 7. Learned HCGP contended that, in view of the averments in the complaint, there is a prima facie case. Hence, contended - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52101 WP No. 8063 of 2025 that the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. As already mentioned, the allegation that the petitioner assaulted the complainant with a stone and inflicted bleeding injuries to him was found to be false during investigation. Admittedly, there is a property dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Hence, in this background it is necessary to examine the material on record. 9. If the complaint averments are perused, vague allegations are made that the petitioner wrongfully restrained the Complainant and abused him in filthy language. This Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment referred supra has observed as under : "10. Section 339 of IPC has its ingredients of wrongful restraint for an act to become an offence under Section 341 of IPC, mandates that the victim should be restrained from a movement in a manner that he would not be able to move towards any side. The complaint does not narrate any such circumstances, the complaint is only hurling of certain abuse with regard to reason why the complainant approaches the petitioner for registering the complaint and beyond that there is nothing narrated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52101 WP No. 8063 of 2025 about any fact that would become ingredients of any wrongful restraint." Further, this Court in the aforesaid judgment, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 SCC online SC 951, held that, intimidation under Section 506 must have ingredients of Section 503 of IPC. On a perusal of the Complaint, it would not indicate that the ingredients of Section 503 of IPC are present which would become an offence under Section 506 IPC. 10. Even in the present case, having perused the FIR averments and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC are not made out. It is evident that, respondent No.2 on account of the dispute with the petitioner, has made vague allegations against the petitioner, which do not attract the ingredients of offence of Wrongful Restraint or Criminal Intimidation. Moreover, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, subsequently the BBMP has entered the names of the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52101 WP No. 8063 of 2025 as well as respondent No.2 in the katha (Annexures B1 and B2). 11. For the above reasons, the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse process of law, which is liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the following order :- ORDER i) The petition is allowed; ii) The entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.6978/24 on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT-SG