- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15747 CRL.P No. 1991 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2019 BETWEEN: KUM. V. SHASHI REKHA D/O LATE VANKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/233, SANTHEBEEDHI, KOLLEGALA-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: S. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE G.R.SREENIVAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.0680, CHOULTRY STREET, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2018 IN C.C.NO.1097/2018 (PCR NO.173/2015) PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, DIRECTING TO REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 499 AND 500 OF IPC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15747 CRL.P No. 1991 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.1097/2018 (arising out of PCR No.173/2015) before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court'). 2. (i) The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the respondent and thereafter, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and ordered to register criminal case, following which, C.C.No.1097/2018 was registered and process was issued. (ii) The petitioner being aggrieved by the registration of C.C.No.1097/2018 has filed this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged. He - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15747 CRL.P No. 1991 of 2019 contends that the petitioner had made statements in a petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner, which are all based on records and therefore, she cannot be accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. He also contends that the petitioner had no intent to defame or bring down the reputation of the respondent, but she had placed the true facts before the Deputy Commissioner so as to enable the Deputy Commissioner to consider a request for transfer of his excise license. He also contends that the respondent in his private complaint did not indicate the date on which the incident was committed, which resulted in the defamation. He contends that the petition was filed on 17.04.2015, which was belated and hence, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the question whether the petitioner was guilty of the offence or not, cannot be gone into in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He contends that the petitioner had made scathing statements against the respondent and this has brought down the reputation of the respondent amongst his family and relatives and therefore, the respondent was entitled - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15747 CRL.P No. 1991 of 2019 to prosecute the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Cr.P.C. He also contends that offence was committed by the petitioner on 07.10.2014 and the private complaint was filed within one year i.e., on 17.04.2015 and hence, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in taking cognizance. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. A perusal of the private complaint filed by the respondent shows that the petitioner had alleged in a petition filed on 08.07.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner that she had paid a sum of Rs.53,00,000/- to the respondent on his assurance that he would purchase a shop from one Mr. Anil Kumar in the name of her brother Mr. Sreedhar for running business in wine. She alleged that she had paid money to the respondent by pledging her ornaments and properties. She alleged that she later came to know that the respondent had not paid a sum of Rs.53,00,000/- to Mr. Anil Kumar and that the respondent had misappropriated the said money. She also - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15747 CRL.P No. 1991 of 2019 alleged that the respondent had stolen some documents relating to the business from her house and that he had assaulted and threatened her, her brother and sister with terrible consequences. Therefore, the respondent was in a way justified in taking out proceedings for prosecuting the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, more particularly in the light of his statement that petitioner had circulated this amongst friends, relatives and well-wishers of the respondent. Therefore, this Court cannot give a clean chit to the petitioner in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. The other contention raised by the petitioner that the private complaint was lodged beyond the time permitted, it is relevant to note that in the private complaint, it was mentioned that the offence was committed by the petitioner on 07.10.2014 and the complaint was filed on 17.04.2015. Hence, it cannot be contended that the private complaint was filed belatedly. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings launched. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15747 CRL.P No. 1991 of 2019 8. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30