- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12757 CRL.P No. 321 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 321 OF 2018 BETWEEN: DR USHA M G W/O ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONANUR TOWN ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN-573 130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYAN BABU D.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KONANUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001 2. DR VINUTHA H K W/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT: BEHIND ARYA EDIGA BHAVANA, KONANUR TOWN ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN-573 130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12757 CRL.P No. 321 of 2018 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUD, HASSAN IN C.C.NO.1070/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.1 has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.1070/2017 pending trial before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagudu, Hassan. 2. (i) The respondent No.2 initiated criminal action against the petitioner herein and others by informing the respondent No.1 on 11.03.2017 that she was given in marriage to Mr. Vijay Kumar. She alleged that the petitioner, her family members and her husband were harassing her in respect of the property that stood in the name of her husband. She alleged that on the instigation of the petitioner and her husband, the husband of respondent No.2 tried to strive her to death but she escaped with the help of her neighbour. She alleged that on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12757 CRL.P No. 321 of 2018 08.03.2017, she visited Usha Clinic to question the petitioner as to why she was interfering with her family. She alleged that there was heated arguments between the petitioner and her. She alleged that the petitioner manhandled her and she suffered injuries caused by the petitioner with a scissor. She also alleged that she was regularly harassed by her in-laws. (ii) Based on this, a case in Crime No.67/2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police investigated the case and thereafter, filed a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 of IPC. (iii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that petitioner had also filed a case against the respondent No.2 in respect of which the police had registered a charge- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12757 CRL.P No. 321 of 2018 sheet and the case is committed to the Sessions Court in S.C.No.132/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 341, 323, 307, 427, 506 and 355 of IPC. He contends that the instant case is a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner. He also contends that there is a delay in lodging the complaint inasmuch as, the incident allegedly happened on 08.03.2017, while the police was informed on 11.03.2017. Thus, he contends that the charge- sheet filed against the petitioner/accused No.1 is liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are married into the same family. There are issues between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, which is evident from the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner, which resulted in a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 of IPC. The petitioner too had lodged a complaint alleging that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12757 CRL.P No. 321 of 2018 respondent No.2 had caused injuries on 08.03.2017 and therefore, the complaint on hand is a counter blast. In the instant case, there was no justification for filing a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC as the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are (i) healed wound over the right hand, (ii) tenderness and swelling over the right foot and tenderness over the right forehead, which could be the injuries that could be caused in a scuffle. These injuries could at the most be a slight harm, which is not an offence under Section 95 of IPC. This apart, the cognizance of the offence is taken by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Trial Court and the Magistrate has merely countersigned it. There is no application of mind before taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 of IPC. In that view of the matter, there was no justification for filing charge-sheet against the petitioner and the order taking cognizance of the offences is equally bad. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.1070/2017 pending trial before the Additional Civil - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12757 CRL.P No. 321 of 2018 Judge and JMFC, Arakalagudu, Hassan, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 of IPC is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14