- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.133 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RADHIKA E., W/O DR.NAGESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, SIT EXTENSIION, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 573 141. PRESENTLY R/A. NO.640, 2ND CROSS, SRIRAMPURA, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 021. 2. ESHWRAPPA G S., S/O LATE GALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, SIT EXTENSIION, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 573 141. 3. JAGADISH E S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 28 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, SIT EXTENSIION, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 573 141. 4. SMT RAJESHWARI D/O ESHWARAPPA G, W/O M.SHIVA SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, SIT EXTENSIION, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 573 141. AT PRESENT R/A NO.5, 3RD FLOOR, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 THIMMAIAH ROAD, OPP. PORUS HOSPITAL, SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU GPO, BENGALURU - 560001. 5. SMT SAROJAMMA R W/O G.ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, SIT EXTENSIION, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 573 141. PETITIONER NOS.2, 3 & 5 ARE AT PRESENT RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.8, RAINGUAGE BADAVANE, PAVAGADA TOWN, SSK HALE ROAD, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY MADHUGIRI P.S., REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. KUBERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O KAMANNA, R/A WARD NO.15, M.S.ROAD, DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU - 561 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOUMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2020 IN C.C.NO.61/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging proceedings in CC.no.61/2020 on file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') against petitioners herein, this petition is filed for quashing of said proceedings. 2. Sri Saravana S., learned counsel for petitioners submitted respondent no.2 (complainant) was father-in-law of petitioner no.1 (accused no.1). That petitioners no.2 to 5 (accused no.2 to 5) were parents, brother and sister of petitioner no.1. That there was matrimonial discord between petitioner no.1 and her husband, leading to filing of Criminal Miscellaneous no.400/2019 before II Principal Family Court, Bangalore for maintenance and MC no.18/2019 on file of Family - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 Court, Bangalore for divorce as well as Crime no.89/2014 before Madhugiri Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to pressurize petitioners, false private complaint in PCR no.7/2019 before Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri was filed on 01.02.2019, falsely alleging that four months earlier, all petitioners went to house of complainant at 1:00 a.m. raised ruckus and on opening door by complainant, accused trespassed into house assaulted complainant with hands and after he fell down kicked him till neighbours arrived and saved complainant. 3. Likewise, it was stated that on 30.12.2018 at about 11:00 p.m., accused once again trespassed into house of complainant, dragged him outside house and assaulted him with hands, accused no.3 assaulted complainant with stone on his leg and when complainant's daughter intervened, accused no.2 and 3 assaulted her, tore her clothes and tried to outrage her modesty and also caused damage to household things. Matter was referred for investigation. On conclusion, charge sheet was filed on 06.11.2019. Allegations in Column-17 of charge sheet however omit presence of daughter of complainant, assaulted by accused no.3 with stone and damage - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 to household things. Same would indicate that substantial portion of complaint's allegations was not subscribed to by prosecution. Same would indicate that complaint was false and with malafide intention of vindicting accused amounting to abuse of process of Court and prayed for allowing petition. 4. On other hand, Smt.Soumya R., learned HCGP for respondent no.1 - State opposed petition. It was submitted, after investigation, police had filed charge sheet against accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 504 and Section 149 of IPC. Allegations in complaint would contain clear ingredients to substantiate offences under said provisions and whether allegations in charge sheet were true or otherwise would require trial and same cannot be examined at this stage. On said grounds sought for dismissal of petition. 5. Respondent no.2 - complainant is served and unrepresented. 6. Heard learned counsel, perused petition and material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 7. As noted above, main ground of challenge is abuse of process of Court. Indeed, comparative reading of private complaint in PCR no.7/2019 and charge sheet filed by prosecution in CC no.61/2020 would reveal that police did not find truth in specific allegations about assault with stone, assault on daughter of complainant and damaged to property etc. Same cannot by itself yield a conclusion that entire contents of complaint are false when police after investigation filed charge sheet. It would only mean there is no sufficient material for prosecution for said allegations. 8. Charge sheet would refer to complainant as injured witness along with eye-witness, pancha witnesses and official witnesses. Charge sheet contains allegation of accused trespassing into house of complainant and assaulting complainant which would sufficiently indicate ingredients for offences causing grievous hurt, criminal trespass and uttering abuses. Though question whether allegation of trespass could be made against petitioner no.1 - daughter-in-law of complainant when she went to her matrimonial home or absence of material to indicate that utterances of abuses were not with intention to provoke breach of peace would be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 133 of 2021 probable grounds, but same cannot be considered at this stage, nor a conclusion that entire complaint is false can be arrived at based on material. 9. Therefore, reserving liberty to take up all contentions, urged herein at appropriate stage, petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25