- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 58 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATHA P R S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NEAR PADAGATTE HANUMANATHANAHALLY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577522. 2. MRUTHYUNJAYA P R S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. L-100 1ST FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU CITY-560102. 3. DEVARAJA P R S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 1231, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BEML LAYOUT, 3RD MA, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 098. 4. PUSHPAVATHI Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 W/O HANUMANTHAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O HONNURU VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577 522. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAK PS, CHALLAKERE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. HEMAVATHI W/O P.R DHANANJAYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHANAHALLY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH P, HCGP FOR R1, R2 NOTICE SERVED, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.233/2023 (CRIME NO.157/2021) REGISTERED BY THALAK POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE CIRCLE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 504, 323, 354 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MOLAKALMURU AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEM FIT. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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 proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.233/2023 (arising out of Crime No.157/2021 of Thalak Police Station), for the offences punishable under sections 448, 504, 323, 354 r/w Section 34 of IPC, presently pending on the file of Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru (for short, 'the learned Sessions Judge'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that her brother-in-law, namely, Gurumurthy, sustained a fracture due to a fall in the bathroom on 18.08.2021 and was thereafter admitted to BGS Hospital, Bengaluru, for treatment. It is further alleged that, after his discharge, the petitioners, with an intention to harass the husband of respondent No.2, shifted Gurumurthy to the house of respondent No.2 situated at Hanumanthanahalli on 05.09.2021. Though respondent No.2 opposed the same, the petitioners forcibly entered her house, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 abused her and outraged her modesty. In this regard, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1- Police on 13.09.2021. 3. On the strength of said complaint, the FIR came to be registered as stated supra. Subsequently, respondent No.1- police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the petitioners by arraying them as accused Nos.1 to 4. Accordingly, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. Despite service of notice to respondent No.2, she remained absent. 5. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the brother-in-law of the complainant, after sustaining injuries, was shifted to the joint family property and house situated at Hanumanthanahalli, wherein he also has an equal share. Therefore, the offences alleged in the FIR i.e. sections 448, 504, 323 and 354 of the IPC, are not attracted against the petitioners. As regards the allegation of outraging - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 the modesty of the complainant, it is contended that, except for the statement of the complainant, there is no corroborative material in the charge-sheet to substantiate the said allegation. It is further contended that the charge-sheet contains only omnibus allegations against the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, opposing the prayer of the petitioners, learned HCGP contended that respondent No.1-Police, after conducting investigation, have laid the charge-sheet against the petitioners and that the charge-sheet material includes the statements of eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. In such circumstances, the truthfulness and veracity of the allegations made in the complaint are required to be tested in a full- fledged trial. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire charge sheet materials. 8. As could be gathered from records, respondent No.2-complainant and the petitioners are relatives. It is alleged - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 in the complaint that the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, i.e. her husband’s elder brother, was shifted to the family house situated at Hanumanthanahalli after he sustained injuries, where respondent No.2 was residing along with her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the joint family property has not been partitioned among the brothers and that the instant complaint is actuated by vengeance against the petitioners. 9. Even otherwise, on perusal of the allegations in the complaint, it is stated that the petitioners forcibly brought and left the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 in the said house. Admittedly, he also has a right and interest in the property situated at Hanumanthanahalli. Therefore, the allegation of forcible entry into the said property has to be considered in the backdrop of the admitted relationship of the parties and the undisputed right of the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 in the said property. 10. In such circumstances, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. As regards the other offences, on - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 careful scrutiny of the entire charge-sheet material, it appears that the complaint has arisen out of the existing dispute between the siblings and has been lodged against the petitioners out of vengeance. 11. 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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 conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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 attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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 should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6) - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 (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 there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 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) 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 - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 2022 dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed." 12. On careful examination of the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that those findings are squarely applicable to the fact and circumstances of this case. It is now settled law that, a false complaint filed in order to tarnish the image of a person and out of vengeance, proceedings cannot be sustained. Moreover, if the entire allegations in the charge sheet taken on its face value also no offences are made out against the petitioners. Such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 is nothing but an abusive process of Court. 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 4 in C.C.No.233/2023 (arising out of Crime - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010679112023 NC: 2026:KHC:49278 CRL.P No. 58 of 2024 No.157/2021 of Thalak Police Station), for the offences punishable under sections 448, 504, 323, 354 r/w Section 34 of IPC, presently pending on the file of Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru, is hereby quashed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3