- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:184 CRL.P No. 1091 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1091 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SMT. DAYAVATHI P.M, @ VEDA MANOHAR MASKI, W/O MANOHAR MASKI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUDDADAHATTI, MALALICHENENAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKAMANGALURU - 577 228. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RISHIKESH .M. KOTTURSHETTER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY TARIKERE POLICE TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. BALAKRISHNA S/O. PALANI, RESIDING AT GUDADAHATTI, HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R., HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06.04.2017 (ANNEXURE-E1) AND THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.458/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE (ANNEXURE-B1). Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:184 CRL.P No. 1091 of 2018 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 who is summoned as accused in C.C.No.458/2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere, is impugning the Notice dated 06.04.2017 and the order dated 11.04.2017 arraigning him as accused by taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). 2. Heard Sri Rishikesh M. Kotturshettar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by 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?" - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:184 CRL.P No. 1091 of 2018 My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Initially, the informant being the injured lodged the first information with Tarikere Town Police against Veda Manohar Maski, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 338 and 287 of IPC. The investigation was undertaken and the final report came to be filed for the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 338 and 287 of IPC against the accused-P.M. Arun S/o P.P.Machaiah. The name of Veda Manohar Maski against whom the FIR came to be registered, was dropped while filing the charge sheet on the ground that her husband Manohar Maski had leased the property in favour of the accused-P.M. Arun for the purpose of preparing Hallo Blocks and therefore it was the accused-P.M. Arun who is responsible for the offences alleged. 5. The informant-injured is examined as PW.1. The copy of the deposition of PW.1 is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, where the witness refers to Manohar Maski as the owner of the Brick Industry and alleges that, he was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:184 CRL.P No. 1091 of 2018 negligent as he has not taken any precaution even though PW.1 was made to work under dangerous conditions. Based on such evidence, the learned Prosecutor appears to have filed the application under Section 319 of Cr.PC produced as per Annexure-E. Strangely, in this application, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that in the evidence of PW.1, he refers to the name of Veda Manohar Maski and therefore she should be one of the accused even though she was dropped by the Investigating Officer while filing the final report. 6. On filing this application under Section 319 of Cr.PC, a Notice was issued to the accused. The Trial Court passed an order dated 11.04.2017 allowing the application and arraigning the petitioner Veda Manohar Maski as one of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 287 of IPC by taking cognizance of the same. 7. There is absolutely no reason assigned by the Trial Court as to why cognizance was taken against Veda Manohar Maski when PW.1 refers to Manohar Maski and not to Veda Manohar Maski. Moreover, in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer states that Manohar Maski has leased his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:184 CRL.P No. 1091 of 2018 property in favour of the accused-P.M. Arun for running the Brick Industry. Without taking into consideration any of these facts, the Trial Court appears to have proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner by arraigning him as accused. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Notice dated 06.04.2017 issued by the Trial Court and the order dated 11.04.2017 are liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The Show-Cause Notice dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure-E1) and the order dated 11.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.458/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere (Annexure-B1), are hereby quashed against the petitioner. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT;VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17