- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5327 OF 2019 BETWEEN: MR. VIJAYAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, TRAFFIC-II, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201 R/O NO.3, OFFICERS QUARTERS COMPLEX, NEAR RTO OFFICE, B. KATIHALLY, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HASSAN CIRCLE & TOWN. HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTER, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. RANGEGOWDA @ THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, M/S RANGANATHA ENTERPRISES, BUDDA MARGA, BESIDE H.D.C.C. BANK, VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN-573202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2912/2016, PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2016, LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC AT HASSAN REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 342, 211, 323, 325 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.3 in CC.No.2912/2016 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior division) and JMFC, Hassan is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 211, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Heard Sri. Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamny. R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, and Sri. S.S. Mahendra, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR.No.191/2011 against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 211, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. The matter was referred for investigation and 'B' report came to be filed. Respondent No.2 filed the protest petition and sought for taking cognizance. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 211, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. Now it is stated that, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance, registered the criminal case. Now the Trial Court has framed charges and additional charges, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 examined few witnesses and therefore the matter is pending for trial. In the meantime the petitioner being accused No.3 has filed this petition seeking to quash criminal proceeding initiated against him. 5. The materials on record disclose that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Police Constables and the petitioner was Police Sub-Inspector. Initially the petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.P.No.6774/2016 seeking to set aside the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.RP.No.186/2015, whereunder the Revisional Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate passed in PCR.No.191/2011 dated 04.09.2015. It is stated that learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint on the ground that the sanction as required under law to prosecute the public servants was not obtained. However, the said order was set aside in the revision filed by the petitioner along with co-accused. The said criminal petition No.6774/2016 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2018, wherein it is categorically held that the offence alleged are evidenced by the prima facie - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 materials which do not indicate that the alleged acts were committed in discharge of the official duty. Therefore, no sanction was necessary to prosecute the petitioner and the other accused. 6. Admittedly, the order passed in Crl.P.No.6774/2016 has reached finality. Similarly based on the order passed by the Revisional Court, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 02.07.2016 took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. Admittedly, Crl.P.No.210/2018 came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.12.2018, again it is admitted that the said order was never challenged by any of the accused and it has reached finality. 7. Now, it is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate while accepting protest petition and taking cognizance is illegal and therefore, the criminal proceeding is to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mr. K. Prabhu V.s The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 State of Karnataka Rural Police Station1, but admittedly the very same order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the Revisional Court in Crl.RP.No.210/2018 and the same came to be dismissed. The petitioner has never chosen to challenge the said order. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot once again challenge the same before this Court. Interestingly, in the present petition the petitioner is not challenging the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance on 02.07.2016. Under such circumstance, the petitioner cannot contend that there are illegality or irregularities in taking cognizance and hence, the criminal proceedings is to be quashed. 9. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, before filing the private complaint the police compliant either under Section 154(1) or 153 of Cr.P.C was not filed, thereby the mandatory requirements of law are not compiled with. This ground was very much available with the petitioner when he filed Crl.P.No.6774/2016. Deliberately no such grounds were raised when the petitioner had first approached this Court by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1 Crl.P.No.101125/2018 DD 31.01.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 Therefore, the petitioner at this length of time cannot be permitted to raise such contentions one after the other in installment. 10. It is noticed that the petitioner is a public servant working as Police Sub-Inspector. The private complaint was filed in the year 2011, he is challenging the orders on one or the other grounds and managed to drag this on for fifteen years. Even when it is admitted that the Trial Court has already framed the charges and the witnesses are already examined before this Court, the petitioner is perusing the matter seeking to quash the criminal proceedings without making any valid grounds. Simply because the petitioner is a public servant working as Police Sub-Inspector, he cannot be permitted to raise such contentions one by one at different form even when the orders taking cognizance and framing charge have reached finality. The conduct of the petitioner as a public servant is to be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in light of the material that may be placed before it for final disposal of the matter. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5228 CRL.P No. 5327 of 2019 11. On perusal of the materials on record there are enough and more prima facie materials to constitute the offence as alleged. Under such circumstance, on flimsy grounds the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed that too when already there is delay of more than fifteen year. Therefore, the Trial Court is required to proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same on merits. In view of the discussions made above, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13