- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11329 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. THUSAHR SHANKAR S/O JYOTHI SHANKAR AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AAT HERAVANDU VILLAGE AND POST, APPANAGALA, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201. ALSO AT NO. 67, 6TH CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR, BANASHANAKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PREMNATH H.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 004, REPRESENTED BY SPP, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 2. MR. SATHVIK.C S/O M.V. CHANAKEHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 101, 1ST FLOOR, J 2A, JUDICIAL BLOCK, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HARISH H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.160/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU CONSEQUENTLY FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.160/2021 DATED 26.08.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 341, 504, 149, 323, 347 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in crime No.160/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 149, 323 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Premnath H.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Harish H.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The fulcrum of the allegation is that students in BMS College of Law have had a squabble and have hit the complainant. The complaint reads as follows: "26th August 2021 To, The Sub Inspector of Police, Basavanugdi, Bangalore. From, Sathvik.C, S/o M.V.Chenakehava Reddy, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 #101, first floor, J 2A, Judicial Block, National games village, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 047 Phone number:63639 79765 Subject: To register a complaint against the classmates for hitting me and threathining and to take right action according to law With reference to the above subject. I Sathvik.C studying in B.M.S. College of law would like to register a complainant against my classmates who have beaten me up with no specified reasons. The details of the incident are as follows. Today I had been to college for attending offline classes and after the classes while returning home one of my classmates who had not attended the college came to me and introduced themselves to me. They tried to convince me to go out with the. Around 8 students form my college asked me to go out with them for lunch. All of them were from the same group. Four students from my class li Semester BA LLB. 'B' Section named Tejas.R.Krishna. Sujith Raj.M.D. Rija Joseph and Tushar Shankar.M., there were four other from other s from 'A' section of the same semester named Akhileah, Manoj and two others. Today was the first day I have spoken to these people though I have seen them earlier in college and have engaged only in minimal interaction with them. Around 2 PM these people came in their vehicles. I asked them where exactly I was being taken to but did not inform of where we were going. Akhilesh took me near UD- Uphara Darshini located near Netkalappa circle. They took me to the cross road next to UD where they parked their vehicles as I thought. We got down there and they started walking towards the cross road and when I asked them why we were going towards the cross road instead of the restaurant they raised their voice tone and put their hand around my neck and took me towards the cross road. These people picked me from college around 2.15 PM. These people claimed to have a grudge against me as I am the class representative and in charge of taking attendance in the class. After we entered the cross road Teias. R. Krishna started the fight - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 claiming that I have spread rumors about him while I responded politely and then Sujith Raj started punching me on my face, followed by Manoj and Tejas R Krishna who continuously hit me and verbally abused me. These people snatched my phone and threatened to brake my phone when I tried to take my phone and make a call. They threatened saying that it would be easy for them to finish me off and tried to hit me with a bottle. As a result of the first bows my teeth is bleeding and shaking swelling of lips and scratch marks on my face. The claimed to achieve a reputation by hitting me, the class representatives and be feared even by senior in the college. These people had come drunk to the college premises and did this act in order to prevent me form informing the college authorities." 4. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.3746/2022 disposed on 20.06.2023 has quashed the proceedings on the following grounds: "This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.160/2021 registered by the Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 149, 323, 347 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Sathvik.C., the Police registered a case and it is alleged by him that the petitioner is his classmate in BMS Law College and he has been beaten up by the accused with no specified reasons and he has further stated that on 26.08.2021, he had been to the college for attending offline classes and after the classes, while returning home, one of his classmates who had not - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 attended the college came and introduced themselves to him and tried to convince him to go out with them. Around 8 students from his college asked him to come with them for lunch where the other persons were all students including this petitioner who found near the hotel. Around 2 p.m., these people came to him and invited for lunch, he went to the UD Upahara Darshini along with accused No.6- Akhilesh where this petitioner came and picked up quarrel stating that why the complainant spread the rumors about the accused. At that time, accused No.5 punched on his face, the same continued by accused No.2 and this petitioner and verbally abused him, snatched his phone and threatened him, they tried to hit with a bottle and due to which, his tooth was shaking. After registering the case, the Police arrested this petitioner, then he was released on bail and later, the Police requested the Magistrate to insert Sections 308 and 325 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner challenged the FIR and further investigation on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged offences stated by the complainant in the FIR and in the requisition has not been attracted. The petitioner and the complainant were all classmates of Law College. The police inserted Section 323 of IPC and later, added Section 325 of IPC which is not attracted against this petitioner. In fact, accused Nos.5 and 2, fisted on the face of the complainant and not by this petitioner but the name of this petitioner was added by the complainant only on the grudge. He has no intention to assault the complainant where the complainant himself said to be came to the hotel, therefore, Section 341 of IPC do not attract. There is no substance in the complaint and no cognizable offence has been made out by the complainant. Therefore, it is contended that in spite of more than 1½ years, the Police have not investigated the matter and chosen to file any report. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition and contended that accused No.1 assaulted the complainant. The injury was grievous - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 in nature as the teeth was fallen down. There was enmity between them. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also contended that the matter is still under investigation. All the accused persons assaulted the complainant. Teeth was fell down, the complainant has taken treatment in the private hospital. Therefore, it attracts Section 325 of IPC. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the complaint, which reveals, the petitioner and the complainant are classmates, but the complainant has not seen the accused and only saw him near the hotel. Accused No.6-Akhilesh took the complainant to the hotel where this petitioner said to be blamed the complainant for spreading rumor against him. While responding to the same, accused No.5 fisted on the face of the complainant and accused No.2 also fisted which reveals that they have fisted on the face due to which the teeth might have shaken. But later it reveals the complainant took the treatment in the private hospital where they replaced the artificial teeth. But it is not a case in the complaint where the teeth was fell down. The MLC report reveals, the incident was took place around 2.30 p.m., at BMS College, Basavanagudi, whereas, the complainant has stated that the incident was held at UD Hotel near Netkalappa Circle which is far away from the college. When there is no ingredients of Section 341 of IPC by restraining the complainant by the accused, the question of attracting Section 341 of IPC does not arise and Section 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) reads as under: "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." 8. On perusal of the complaint wherein, the complainant has stated that he went to the hotel for lunch and when all of them were near the hotel, the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 quarrel took place. Therefore, the question of restraining the complainant by the petitioner in order to attract Section 341 of IPC does not arise. 9. The next offence stated in the FIR is Section 347 of IPC which reads as under: "347. Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act.— Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine." 10. On bare reading of the proviso, which says, the person should be confined for any property or valuable security or to do anything illegal. There is no such ingredients available in the complaint in order to attract Section 347 of IPC. If these two offences are taken away from the complaint, the remaining offences are only under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. All these three offences are non cognizable offences where the Police required permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for registering the FIR. But no such permission obtained by the Police and cleverly added Sections 341 and 347 of IPC in the FIR even without having any ingredients in the complaint, only for the purpose of avoiding for obtaining permission from the Magistrate. 11. Though it is stated that the Police subsequently requested the Magistrate for adding Sections 308 and 325 of IPC, but no such ingredients to attract Section 308 of IPC in the complaint. There is no attempt for culpable homicide. Mere fisting on the face cannot be considered as a culpable homicide not - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 amounting to murder in order to bring under Section 308 of IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 308 of IPC also does not attract. 12. As regards to Section 325 of IPC, accused Nos.5 and 2 fisted on the face and teeth was shaking, but later the dentist might have given treatment for the purpose of replacing the teeth or doing any treatment which cannot be considered against the petitioner as an offence as he was not assaulted the complainant except abusing the complainant, therefore, none of the ingredients of any of the alleged offences in the FIR or in the further requisition to show the petitioner has committed the offence. Therefore, the Police might not be finding any proper evidence to file the charge-sheet and they waited for more than 1½ years after registering the FIR. Absolutely, there is no prima facie material against the petitioner for filing the charge-sheet or conducting investigation against the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR and investigation is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR and investigation against the petitioner- accused No.1 in Crime No.160/2021 registered by the Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru is hereby quashed." 5. The accused Nos.2, 4 and 6 had preferred Crl.P.No.10667/2023, which is also quashed by another Co-ordinate Bench 08.12.2025 on the following grounds : "2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties concerned that no one has been hurt seriously and that the parties have compromised and they intend to lead their lives in a friendly manner. 3. The petitioners and respondent no.2 are present before the Court and are duly identified by their respective counsel. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 4. As the petitioners are not alleged of committing any heinous crimes and it was only a fight amongst students not resulting any grievous injury to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 having forgiven the petitioners and together they having intended to lead their lives in a friendly manner, in my opinion, the interest of justice requires the proceedings against the petitioners herein be quashed. 5. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed; (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.160/2021 pending on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against the petitioners herein stand quashed." 6. Who is left in the fray is the present petitioner/accused No.3, while it is quashed against every other accused. 7. In the light of the quashment of the others and the petitioner today, practicing advocate, both the complainant and the accused, it should not mean that the crime should continue, notwithstanding the quashment of the co-accused. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499782023 NC: 2026:KHC:39102 CRL.P No. 11329 of 2023 ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The investigation in crime No.160/2021 pending on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28