- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 139 OF 2019 BETWEEN: MRIDULA SANKHYAYAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 802/902 PURVA RIVIERA APARTMENT MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDARAJU ALONG WITH SRI. SHARATH S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. GOVINDARAJU L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 038 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING 2. MANISH BHANDARI S/O KISHAN SINGH BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 69-70, BHOPAL PURA K-ROAD, UDAIPUR-313 001, RAJASTHAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE FIR REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.549/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 (ANNEXURES A AND B) AND DIRECT THE 1ST RESPONDENT OR ANY OTHER POLICE STATION TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ABUSING THE PROCESS OF LAW AND COURTS 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 has challenged the First Information Report (henceforth referred to as 'FIR') registered by the respondent No.1 dated 17.12.2018 in Crime No.549/2018 pending consideration before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that she was married to the respondent No.2 on 14.10.2013 at Rajasthan. She had two sons from an earlier marriage. She claimed that she was residing in an apartment purchased by her much prior to her marriage with the respondent No.2. She alleged that during her marital life with respondent No.2, the conduct of the respondent No.2 towards her and her children changed drastically and he started controlling every aspect of her life as well as the life of her children. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 (ii) She contends that respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 in writing on 17.12.2018 that the petitioner was moving around with spiritualist and that she went to Lucknow to meet him and thereafter, she travelled to Mumbai, where the spiritualist was also living. He alleged that the petitioner had changed her attitude towards him and started fighting, abusing and scolding and ill-treating him with abusive words and avoiding him. (iii) He also alleged that some goons/rowdy elements were following him in public places and therefore he feared for his life and felt threatened all the time. He therefore requested the respondent No.1 to take action against the petitioner for "wrongful restraint" and "wrongful confinement." Based on the said information, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.549/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as ‘IPC’). 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the criminal action initiated against her has filed this petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 4. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He submits that the petitioner had filed M.C.No.5397/2018 for dissolution of the marriage in which an application was filed under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that the Court allowed the said application in terms of an order dated 05.10.2018 and issued interim injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in the flat bearing Nos.802 or 902, Purva Riviera Apartment, Marathahalli, Bengaluru-37. (ii) He further contends that after such an order was passed, the respondent No.2 lodged the complaint in question. He also invited the attention of the Court to an order dated 18.12.2018, in M.C.No.5397/2018, where the Court while considering an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restrained the respondent No.2 from entering her residence and her place of employment and also the school - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 where her children were studying and her parents' home at Allahabad or attempting to communicate in any manner with the respondent. (iii) He therefore contends that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 is a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Family Court. Thus, he contends that the same is an abuse of the process of law and Courts and the impugned FIR drawn by the respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed. The respondent No.2 though served with a notice has not appeared. 5. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the complaint discloses offences under Sections 342 and 506 of the IPC and therefore, a FIR was drawn against the petitioner. He contends that the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the contentions urged by the petitioner would be considered by the investigating officer while investigating the case. He therefore submits that there is no need to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 6. The petitioner had initiated proceedings for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.2 in M.C.No.5397/2018. It is also evident from the records produced by the petitioner that an application was filed by the petitioner seeking interim injunction to restrain the respondent No.2 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the flat where the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were staying and which was purchased by the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 12.06.2012. Two months thereafter, the respondent No.2 informed the police, which resulted in the registration of an FIR in Crime No.549/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 506 of the IPC. 7. A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 does not show when and how the respondent No.2 was restrained wrongfully and confined wrongfully and when and how the petitioner had threatened him of his life. An omnibus statement is made in the complaint that the respondent No.2 was wrongfully restrained and wrongfully confined and was threatened of his life. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13158 CRL.P No. 139 of 2019 8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 was an offshoot or a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Family Court for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.2. This is indeed a clear abuse of the process of law and is a textbook example as to how the process of law can be abused and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 deserve to be halted. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed; ii. The FIR drawn by respondent No.1 in Crime No.549/2018 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 506 of IPC is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10