- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 159 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BYRAPPA S/O SIDDEGOWDA @ MUKKODLAIAH, AGE 80 YEARS, 2. SMT KAMALAMMA W/O SRI BYRAPPA, AGE 65 YEARS, 3. SMT MANJULA D/O SRI BYRAPPA, AGE 40 YEARS, 4. SRI ANAND D.B S/O SRI BYRAPPA, AGE 35 YEARS, 5. SRI SUHAS S/O SMT MANJULA & SRI RAVI, AGE 25 YEARS, 6. SMT MAMATHA T W/O SRI. ANAND D.B AGE 32 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 7. MS HARSHITHA D/O SMT MANJULA & SRI RAVI AGE 22 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT NO 19, 3RD CROSS, KALIDASA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA BY HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S VISVESHWARAPURAM SUB DIVISION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 (COMPLAINANT BEFORE MAGISTRATE COURT) 2. SMT ANITHJA W/O LATE D.B NARASIMHA AGE 38 YEARS, R/AT NO 19, 3RD CROSS, KALIDASA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1, R2 - NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMPLIANT IN PCR NO.12098/2023 PENDING BEFORE HONBEL XXIV ADDL.CMM COURT, BENGALURU ALLEGING THE OFFENCE P/U/S.323,324,354,417,420,504,506 R/W SEC.120-B AND 34 OF IPC AND THE RESULTANT CRIME NO.299/2023 REGISTERED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 OFFENCE P/U/S.323,324,354,417,420,504,506 R/W SEC.120-B AND 34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in P.C.R.No.12098/2023 (Crime No.299/2023) pending on the file of XXIV Additional CMM, Court, Bengaluru (for short 'the learned Magistrate') for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 417, 420, 504, 506, 120B r/w Sections and 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint before the learned Magistrate in PCR No.12098/2023, alleging that she is the daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and that her husband died in the year 2021. It is alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2, out of the earnings of her deceased husband, purchased property bearing No.25/19 situated at Dasarahalli North East, Bengaluru. After the demise of her husband, when she demanded her share in the said property from petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they refused to - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 accede to her request. It is further alleged that, on 14.10.2023, petitioners abused and assaulted her, pursuant to which she lodged a complaint before the Hanumanthanagar Police Station, which came to be registered in NCR No.156/2023. Thereafter, the petitioners, forming an unlawful assembly, allegedly trespassed into her house, abused her in filthy language and outraged her modesty. It is also alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 conveyed the aforesaid property in favour of their daughter, petitioner No.3, by way of a gift deed. Hence, respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid private complaint before the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned Magistrate referred the private complaint to the jurisdictional police i.e. Hanumanthanagara Police, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, the police registered FIR in Crime No.299/2023 dated 28.11.2023 against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid crime and the continuation of proceedings in PCR No.12098/2023 and the FIR, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashing of the same. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Though the respondent No.2 was served with the notice, she remained absent. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.2-complainant, being the daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, has claimed a right over the self-acquired property of petitioner No.1 on the premise that her deceased husband had contributed towards the sale consideration of the said property. On the said premise, she has instituted a civil suit in O.S. No.1189/2023 against the petitioners, which is pending before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru. It is further contended that the averments made in the private complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow the petition. 6. The learned HCGP opposed the prayer of the petitioners. According to him, the case is still under investigation, at this stage FIR cannot be quashed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the documents available on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, respondent No.2-complainant has alleged in the private complaint that she was married to the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 15.11.2004 and that, unfortunately, her husband died on 01.05.2021. Thereafter, she claimed a right over the self-acquired property of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. In that regard, the petitioners instituted a suit for her eviction in O.S. No.1542/2023, whereas the complainant subsequently instituted O.S. No.1189/2023 seeking partition. It is thereafter that respondent No.2 lodged the private complaint alleging that, on 14.10.2023, all the petitioners trespassed into her house and assaulted her. In respect of the said incident, an NCR had already been registered in NCR No.156/2023. However, the private complaint does not disclose any specific date or particulars of any subsequent incident of trespass or assault allegedly committed by the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 9. On careful perusal of the private complaint, FIR and other documents placed on record by the petitioners, it appears that the present proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioners out of vengeance, essentially on account of the petitioners’ refusal to allot her any share in their self-acquired property. 10. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED ALI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UP - 2023 (15) SCC 488 in paragraph No.11 to 14 held as under: "11. The entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters are:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra). 12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis supplied) - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 14. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed." 11. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 out of vengeance and that the allegations made therein do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 in P.C.R.No.12098/2023 (Crime No.299/2023) registered by Hanumanthanagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010002782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48672 CRL.P No. 159 of 2024 Sections 3323, 324, 354, 417, 420, 504, 506, 120B r/w Sections and 34 of IPC, presently pending on the file of XXIV Additional CMM, Court, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35