- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200163 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SUNIL S/O GANGARAM NAYAK, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT OF P.HD, R/O. JEEROLI TANDA VILLAGE, TQ.ALAND, DIST.KALABURAGI, NOW PRESENTLY R/AT, NRUPTUNGA RESEARCH HOSTEL, KALABURAGI UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI-585102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, REP.BY ADDL.SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585103. 2. SUSHMA D/O SUBHASH RATHOD, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KALABURAGI, R/O. H. NO. PLOT 140. JAWAR, HOUSING BOARD SOCIETY, SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUR KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST.KALABURAGI-585102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND QUASH THE CRIME NO. 17 OF 2025 OF UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 3(5), 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023, AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI AS SAME IS NOTHING BUT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The corresponding offences under the old act are under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she was working as an Engineer at Irrigation Department, Kalaburagi. She stated to have lodged a complaint against her maternal uncle stating that he was forcing her for marriage. It is further stated that on 21.01.2025, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 elders have fixed her engagement ceremony to be performed with another person. However, the accused after coming to know about the engagement, approached the family members of the bridegroom and threatened the family members and restrained them from in performing the engagement ceremony. 3. On 08.01.2025 around about 3.30 p.m., when the complainant and her brother had been to State Bank of India and when they were returning from the said Bank, she saw that the petitioner was sitting on the dais along with his friends, which was situated opposite to the said bank, the complainant went and asked him as to why he was spoiling her life. At that time, he said to have replied in a boastful manner and also threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, she lodged a complaint requesting to take suitable action against the accused/petitioner. 4. The jurisdictional police after receiving the complaint issued an endorsement stating that it is non- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 cognizable offence and hence, FIR cannot be registered against said offence. Further, it is suggested to obtain permission from the Jurisdictional Magistrate to register FIR. 5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Ravi Bheemsingh Chawan for the petitioner, Sri G.B.Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri Avinash A. Uploankar for respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that though the alleged incident had taken place on 08.01.2025, complaint came to be registered on 20.01.2025. Moreover, the said complaint came to be registered as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the complainant and her family members. 7. It is further submitted that the averments made in the said complaint would not disclose the ingredients of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the procedure to register the FIR in respect of non-cognizable offences has not been followed, therefore, the FIR has to be quashed. Making such submission, he prays to quash the FIR and its consequential proceedings. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the registration of FIR and he submitted that on 19.01.2025, a complaint was lodged before the respondent – police and on the following day, after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner/accused. As such, the required procedure has been followed and therefore, there is no infirmity in registering the FIR. Thus, he prays to reject the petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, no doubt, the complainant has lodged a complaint making certain allegations against the petitioner. However, it is stated that the incident had occurred on 08.01.2025 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner on 20.01.2025. Though, the delay has been explained in the said FIR stating that the complaint has been lodged after discussing the matter with the family members about the incident, the fact remains that, the said complaint came to be registered as a counter blast as against the complaint, which was filed by the petitioner herein against the complainant and her family members in PCR No.746/2024 on 12.11.2024. 10. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others1, wherein at paragraph No.102, it is held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the 1 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer 1992 Supp. (1) 335 without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. On reading of the above said judgment, the ratio laid down in the said case squarely applicable to the case on hand and it is a fit case to quash the FIR. It is also needless to state that the FIR filed against the petitioner cannot be survived even on the ground that the procedure as prescribed has not been followed by the respondent – police for the alleged offences. 12. Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates the procedure prescribed to register the FIR in case of non- cognizable offences. Permission from the Magistrate has to be obtained by the complainant by filing private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In this case, no such procedure has been followed. Therefore, the FIR has to be quashed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.17/2025 registered by University Police Station, Kalaburagi City, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending before the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi stands quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK