- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010294212019 NC: 2026:KHC:47725 CRL.P No. 6774 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6774 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANJUNATH K., S/O SRI KEMPE GOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.138/139, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ALLALASANDRA, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE CITY. 2. SRI B.KRISHNA KUMAR S/O BORALINGE GOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.28, 5TH MAIN, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE CITY. 3. SRI PRASHANTH M.G., S/O GOPALAKRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO.31, DEEPA FLOOR MILL ROAD, 5TH CROSS, TRADERS COLONY, NAGASHETTAHALLI, SANJAYANAGARA BANGALORE CITY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SURESH V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. BHAVYA KULDEEP, W/O A.S.BANGARU KULDEEP, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010294212019 NC: 2026:KHC:47725 CRL.P No. 6774 of 2019 R/A FLAT NO.306, APOORVA MANSION APARTMENT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI THEJA A.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN C.C.NO.23196/2018 P/U/S 341,323,354,504,506,452 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CITY METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Smt.Sowmya R., learned HCGP for respondent no.1 - State submits that present petition is filed challenging charge sheet and entire proceedings in CC no.23196/2018 on file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010294212019 NC: 2026:KHC:47725 CRL.P No. 6774 of 2019 2. It was submitted that even prior to filing of petition, charges were framed and during pendency of above petition, trial had commenced by examination of PW-1 in part on 12.12.2019 much prior to date of grant of interim order by this Court on 26.03.2021. It was submitted, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 142, present petition filed for quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings would be untenable. 3. In reply, Sri V. Suresh, learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners are Employees of HDB Financial Services Company and in course of execution proceedings, judgment debtor had died and petitioners went to house of complainant to secure particulars of legal heirs only. In order to avoid payment of dues and to dilate execution, false complaint was filed, which was abuse of process. Fact that complaint was filed after delay of 2 days would also highlight said contention. 4. Absence of any injuries in wound certificate sought to be relied upon indicate no offence would be attracted. It was - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010294212019 NC: 2026:KHC:47725 CRL.P No. 6774 of 2019 submitted, there was delay in medical examination. It was submitted, statement of CW-5 that petitioners - accused visited her school at 2:00 p.m. would militate against complaint averments which alleges that petitioners were at house of complainant at 2:00 p.m. It was submitted that there could be no possibility of petitioners being present at two different places at same time would also support contention that impugned proceedings were abuse of process. In view of above facts and circumstances, despite framing of charges and commencement of trial, present case would warrant interference. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 6. Relief sought in petition is for quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. As rightly pointed even prior to date of filing of petition on 13.09.2019, charges were already framed. Though, initially there was no interim order, prior to its grant on - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010294212019 NC: 2026:KHC:47725 CRL.P No. 6774 of 2019 26.03.2021, trial had commenced with examination of PW-1 in part on 12.12.2019. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Minakshi Bala's case (supra) has held once charges are framed under Section 240 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), High Court in its Revisional Jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of CrPC, nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash same, except in rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. 8. In instant case, contentions urged by petitioners - accused are in nature of defence and would be available for canvass in trial. In view of fact that trial has already commenced, this Court does not find it fit to entertain petition. 9. Hence, petition is dismissed reserving liberty to petitioners to urge all contentions before trial Court at appropriate stage. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11