- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23530 CRL.P No. 16645 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16645 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. ARUN KUMAR R.M, S/O LATE MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT. NO.49/1, SHREYAS BUILDING, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VIDHYANAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057. 2. SUHAL. S/O MOHAMMED EAJAZ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT. NO.864, 8TH CROSS, FIRDOSE MANZIL, COCONUT GARDEN, T. DASARAHAILI, BENGALURU - 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ALUR RAMESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 058. 2. PRAVEEN BABU, POLICE INSPECTOR, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23530 CRL.P No. 16645 of 2025 SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S, SOLADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 562 127. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AS CR.NO.357/2016 BY PEENYA P.S. AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.04.2016, THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 12.08.2016 IN CC.NO.11669/2017, AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1301/2025 FOR OFFENCES U/S. 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 332, 353, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60 BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.7 and 23 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C. No.1301/2025. 2. Heard Sri. Alur Ramesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23530 CRL.P No. 16645 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings qua the co-accused i.e., accused No.1 in SAIFUL MONDAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, by the following order: "1. A complaint was lodged by the Inspector of Police on 19.04.2016 alleging that a mob of about 1200 to 1600 had gathered at Jalahalli cross to protest against the promulgation of New Provident Fund Policy by the Union Government and when requested to disperse the crowd got unruly and started pelting stones, which caused injuries to the Constables. A crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 392, 332, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and after investigation, a chargesheet has been laid against 25 accused persons and the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. 2. The assertions in the chargesheet are as follows - “¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-04-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½îUÉ 11-30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÁªÉÄðAmïì PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¨sÀ«µÀå ¤¢üUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV, ¥Àæw¨sÀl£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀjzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ §AzÀ ªÀiÁ»w ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §AzÉÆç¸ÉÛUÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-35, ¸ÁQë-24, ¸ÁQë-25, ¸ÁQë-26, ¸ÁQë-27 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.¦ ªÁºÀ£À PÉJ-42 f 680 C¢üPÁj, ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-10, ¸ÁQë-11, ¸ÁQë-12, ¸ÁQë-13, ¸ÁQë- 14, ¸ÁQë-15, ¸ÁQë-16, ¸ÁQë-17, ¸ÁQë-18, ¸ÁQë-19, ¸ÁQë- 20, ¸ÁQë-21, ¸ÁQë-22, ¸ÁQë-23 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¦ÃuÁå ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À eÁ®ºÀ½î PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¨sÁgÀw avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀzÀ §½ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÁUÉ, CAPÀt-4 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6, J7, J8, J9, J10, J11, J12, 1 Crl. Petition No.4060/2019, disposed on 13-06-2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23530 CRL.P No. 16645 of 2025 J13, J14, J15, J16, J17, J18, J19, J20, J21, J22, J23, J24.” 3. As could be seen from the above, the accused are alleged to have pelted stones and in order to substantiate the same, reliance is placed on the evidence of the Police Personnel. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader candidly submits that the statements recorded including that of the Inspector does not indicate that any overt acts are alleged against the petitioner. 5. In the absence of any specific allegations, averments or material to indicate that the petitioner had pelted stones or caused injuries, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioner would be a clear case of abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, shall stand quashed. 6. In view of disposal of main petition, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.” 4. In the light of the proceedings being quashed qua accused No.1, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings qua the petitioners. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23530 CRL.P No. 16645 of 2025 ii. Proceedings in S.C. No.1301/2025 pending on the file of the LIX Adl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioners. I.A. No.1/2025 is disposed of as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 119