- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8404 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12903 OF 2023 IN CRL.P No. 8404/2024 BETWEEN: SRI. K.NANJEGOWDA, S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KUGENAHALLI VILLAGE, DB VANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN – 561 203. AND ALSO R/AT NO.94, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR ROYAL CONCORD SCHOOL, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, ATTUR, BENGALURU – 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKRAM PASHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KUGENAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN – 561 204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. M.MUNIGANGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.329/2021 AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.3 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU. IN CRL.P NO. 12903/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. SRI. KUSHA, S/O KEMPANNA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SMT. SHANTAMMA, W/O LATE MUNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOGONAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TLAUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE STATION, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOGONAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. M.MUNIGANGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.329/2021 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND CR.NO.54/2021 DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 R/W 149, 114 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) AND 3(1)(w) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The cases at hand are preferred by different accused. In Special C.C.No.329/2021, Crl.P.No.8404/2024 is preferred by accused No.3 while companion Petition in Crl.P.No.12903/2023 is preferred by accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.P.No.8404/2024 is narrated. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 2. In Crl.P.No.8404/2024, heard Sri.Akram Pasha K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.M.Munigangappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. In Crl.P.No.12903/2023, heard Sri.Subramanya H.V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.M.Munigangappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 6.4.2021 on an incident that takes place on 2.2.2021 at about 9.30 p.m. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.54/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. 4. The police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the accused in the cases at hand. Filing of the charge sheet has driven these accused to this Court in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 subject petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases would project similar contentions of the crime being registered as a counter blast. Learned counsel submits that several proceedings are instituted including a matrimonial case due to which the present complaint is a counter blast. Apart from the said fact, the learned counsel submits that the complaint is registered on 6.4.2021 for an incident that allegedly takes place on 2.2.2021. There was a delay of 65 days in registering the complaint. Learned counsel submits that if at all there was an assault that is happened in the case at hand and hurling of abuses that has happened, the complainant ought to have registered a crime immediately. Therefore, would submit that the petitions be allowed and the proceedings be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP representing the State would take this Court through the documents appended to the petitions which are the charge sheet material and the charge sheet itself to indicate that the matter would require a trial as there are serious allegations of assault and hurling of abuses in broad day light in a place of public view or public - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 place as the case would be. He would submit that the discharge application filed by the petitioners before the concerned Court have also been rejected and this Court should not interfere in cases where the allegations are grave in nature. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The petitioners are the accused as indicated hereinabove. On 6.4.2021, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent-complainant one Manjunath. The complaint reads as follows: “ರವೆ: ೕ ಸ ಇೆಕ ೊಡೆಳವಂಗಲ ೕ ಾೆ ೊಡೆ ಾ!ಪ#ರ $ಾಲೂ%ಕು. ಇಂದು: ಮಂಜು*ಾಥ , -ೇ. *ಾಗಪ/, 40 ವಷ1 2ಾ34 *ಾಯಕರು ಜ*ಾಂಗ, ವ6ವ7ಾಯ 8ೊೇನಹ;! ಾ<ಮ, ೊಡೆಳವಂಗಲ =ೋಬ;, ೊಡಬ ಾ!ಪ#ರ $ಾಲೂ%ಕು, ?ೕೈA ನಂ:8310694313. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 Bಾನ6Cೆ, Dಷಯ: EಾF Gಂದ*ೆ BಾH ೈIಕ ಹ-ೆ% ಮತುK 8ೊ-ೆ ೆದ8ೆ =ಾ4ರುವ ಬೆL. 8ೊೇನಹ;! ಾ<ಮದ 2ಾMNಾದ ಮಂಜು*ಾಥ ಆದ *ಾನು PೈQ BಾHM8ೊಡುFKರುವ ದೂರು ಏ*ೆಂದCೆ, ನನS ತಂೆ *ಾಗಪ/, $ಾT ಜಯಮU ಆVದುW, ನಮU ತಂೆ 2 ವಷ1ಗಳ Iಂೆ ಮೃತಪYರು$ಾKCೆ. ನಮU ತಂೆ $ಾTೆ ಒಟು 4 ಜನ ಮಕ\ಳ] ಇದುW, 1*ೇ ಸು^ೕಲಮU (ೌF), 2*ೇ Vೕ$ಾ, 3*ೇ ಇಂದ<ಮU (ೌF), 4*ೇ *ಾನು ಆVರು$ೆKೕ2ೆ. *ಾನು ಯ`ೆaೕಧಳನುS ಮುದು2ೆNಾVದುW ನಮೆ ಪವ, (16 ವಷ1), ಮುರ; (13 ವಷ1) ಇಬcರು ಮಕ\;ದುW *ಾನು ನನS ಪFS, ಮಕ\ಳ] ಮತುK ನಮU $ಾTdಂeೆ 2ಾಸ2ಾVರು$ೆKೕ*ೆ. e*ಾಂಕ 2/2/2021 ರಂದು *ಾನು ನನS ಪFSಯನುS ಕCೆದು8ೊಂಡು ೆಂಗಳfರು ನಗರ ಾಾ2ಾರ ಆಸ/$ೆ<ೆ ಕCೆದು8ೊಂಡು =ೋV, ಅ%ನ 2ೈದ6ರ ಬ; h4$ೆ 8ೊHM ನನS ಪFSಯ ತವರು ಮ*ೆNಾದ ಾಸನಪ#ರ =ೋಬ;, ನರMೕಪ#ರ ಾ<ಮ8ೆ\ =ೋV CಾF< ನನS ಪFSಯ ಮ*ೆಯ%ೆWನು. e*ಾಂಕ 3/2/2021 ರಂದು *ಾನು ಒಬc*ೇ ೆ;ೆL ಸುBಾರು 9:00 ಗಂPೆೆ ನಮU ಮ*ೆೆ ಬಂೆನು. ನನS $ಾT ಮತುK ಮಕ\ಳ] G*ೆS eನ e*ಾಂಕ 2/2/2021 ರ CಾF< ಸುBಾರು 9:30 ಗಂPೆಯ% ಸಮೂUನ ಸವiೕ1ಯ ಜ*ಾಂಗ8ೆ\ 7ೇದ DಜಯಕುBಾರ , ನಂEೇೌಡ, ಕುಶ , 8ೆಂಪಣl, ನಂEೇೌಡ , 8ೆಂಪಣl, ಲmnೕ*ಾCಾಯಣ7ಾop , 8ೆಂಪಣl, 2ೆಂಕಮU 8ೋಂ ನಂEೇೌಡ, ಜಗ , ನಂEೇೌಡ, ಜಗeೕಶ , ನಂEೇೌಡ, ಪ<8ಾಶ , ೈರಪ/, ಪ<8ಾq , ಹನುಮಯ6, dೕVೕq 8ೋಂ 8ೆಂೇೌಡ, `ಾಂತಮU 8ೋಂ ಮು*ೇೌಡ, ಮಂಜು*ಾಥ , Cಾಮಣl, ಚ*ೆSೕೌಡ , *ಾCಾಯಣಪ/, ಅs1ತ 8ೋಂ ಜಗeೕಶ, ಜಗeೕಶ , ^<ೕG2ಾಸ, ರtೕಶ , =ಾನ hಕ\ಣl, ಇವರುಗಳ] ಒPಾV 7ೇ ನಮU ಮ*ೆಯ tೕ-ೆ *ಾನು ಇಲ%ದ ಸಮಯದ% ಾ; BಾHರು$ಾKCೆಂದು, ಇವCೆಲ%ರೂ 7ೇ ನಮU ಮ*ೆಯ ಮುಂಾVಲು =ೊuೆದು =ಾ4, ಮ*ೆಯ ವಸುKಗಳ*ೆSೕ-ಾ% vೆ-ಾ%s% BಾH, ನನS =ೆಸನ%ದW 8ೆಎ-43-ಎ - 2700 ಅಾ/h ೈx ಅನುS DಜಯಕುBಾರ, ಕುಶ, ^<ೕG2ಾಸನ ಮಗ ಜಗeೕಶ, ಪ<8ಾಶ ರವರು 7ೇ ಜಖಂ ೋ;Mರು$ಾKರಂತ, ಮತುK ಮಂಜು*ಾಥನು ೊೆlTಂದ ನನS ಮಗ ಪವನGೆ ಮತುK ಮುರ;ೆ =ೊuೆeದುW, dೕೇಶ, ನಂEೇೌಡ ಇಬcರೂ ನನS $ಾTೆ ೊೆlTಂದ 7ೊಂಟ8ೆ\, ಮುಖ8ೆ\ =ೊuೆದರಮತ, 2ೆಂಕಮU, `ಾಂತಮU ರವರು ನನS $ಾTೆ ಚಪ/Tಂದ =ೊuೆದರು ಅಂತ, tೕಲ\ಂಡ ಎಲ%ರೂ 7ೇ ನಮU ಮ*ೆೆ ಪPೊ<ೕA ಹುಯುW ೆಂ8ೆ =ಾ4 ಾTೆ ಬಂದಂ$ೆ ೈದು, ೆ;ೆL GನS ಮಗ ಮಂಜು*ಾಥ ಊೆ ಒೕ ಕತK7ಾ4ೕD ಅಂತ GಮUಮU *ಾಯಕ*ಾS 8ೆNಾ, ಊನ% 15 ಮ*ೆ ಇCೋದು, ಊರ*ೊSೕ {ಾ BಾHMKೕD ಅಂತ ೆದ8ೆ =ಾ4ರು$ಾKರಂತ. ೕ ಕಂೆ%ೕಂ. 8ೊPೆ< 8ೊ-ೆ Bಾಡುವ#ಾV ಾ<ಣೆದ8ೆ =ಾ4ರು$ಾKರಂತ F;Mದರು. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 ನಂತರ *ಾನು ನನS $ಾT, ನನS ಮಕ\ಳನುS ಕCೆದು8ೊಂಡು ೊಡ=ೆvಾ|}ಯ%ರುವ ಸ8ಾ1 ಆಸ/$ೆ<ೆ ಕCೆದು8ೊಂಡು =ೋV h4$ೆ 8ೊHMರು$ೆKೕ*ೆ. tೕಲ\ಂಡರವರು ನಮUಗಳ Dರುದ~ ೊಡೆಳವಂಗಲ ೕ ಾೆೆ Cಾಜ4ೕಯ ದುರುೆWೕಶeಂದ ದೂರು 8ೊYರುವ Dvಾರ ನಂತರ ನನೆ F;Tತು. ನನS ಪFSಯ ಆCೋಗ6 ಸTಲ%ದ 8ಾರಣ *ಾನು ನನS ಪFSಯನುS ಆಸ/$ೆ<ೆ $ೋಸುFKದWಂದ ಮತುK tೕಲ\ಂಡರವರು ನಮU tೕ-ೆ ಕಂೆ%ೕಂ. 8ೊYದWಂದ *ಾನು ನನ ಪFSಯನುS ಆಸ/$ೆ<ೆ ಕCೆದು8ೊಂಡು =ೋV $ೋM, ನನS tೕ-ೆ ಾಖ-ಾVದW 8ೇMನ% Gೕ•ಾ Eಾpೕನು ಪuೆದು8ೊಂHದುW. ಈ eನ ತಡ2ಾV ಬಂದು ಈ ದೂರು GೕಡುತKೆWೕ*ೆ. ನಮU $ಾTಯು ಅDಾ6ವಂತCಾVದುW ಸNಾV ದೂರು Gೕಡುವ#ದು F;eರುವ#eಲ% ಮತುK ನಮೂUನ ಾ<ಮಸKರು ಇದು ಊನ ಸಣl ಸಮ7ೆ6 ೊಡದು Bಾಡುವ#ದು ೇಡ ಎಂದು F; =ೇ;ದWಂದ. tೕಲ\ಂಡರವರು •tNಾhM ನನS ಸಷ ಭF1 BಾH8ೊಡಬಹುೆಂದು ಸಮUGೆWನು. tೕಲ\ಂಡ ಆ7ಾpಗಳ Dರುದ~ 8ಾನೂನು ೕ$ಾ6 ಕ<ಮ 8ೈೊಂಡು ನಮೆ *ಾ6ಯ 8ೊHಸೇ8ೆಂದು 8ೋರು$ೆKೕ*ೆ. ಈ ದೂ*ೊಂeೆ ಆCೋsಗಳ] ನಮU ಮ*ೆೆ ನುVL ಾVಲು, ೈx ಜಖಂೊ;Mದ ೕPೋಗಳನುS ಮತುK ನನS $ಾT, ನನS ಮಗನ ಾಯದ ಪ<Bಾಣ ಪತ<ದ ಪ<FಯನುS ಲಗFKMರು$ೆKೕ*ೆ. ತಮU D‚ೇಯ Sd/- ಮಂಜು*ಾಥ. Received on 06.04.2021 at 20-30 hrs and registered a case Cr.No.54/21 U/S 427, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 R/W 149 IPC And Section 3 c/s (r) (s) (w) of PO & SC/ST Act Sd/- PSI 06.04.21.” The complainant clearly narrates that on 2.2.2021, at about 9.30 p.m., the accused come in a vehicle, assault the mother of the complainant and intimidate or threaten the complainant or his mother for their lives. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.54/2021. The police after investigation, file a charge - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column 17 reads as follows: 17. 17. 17. 17. 8ೇMನ 8ೇMನ 8ೇMನ 8ೇMನ ಸಂmಪK ಸಂmಪK ಸಂmಪK ಸಂmಪK 7ಾCಾಂಶ 7ಾCಾಂಶ 7ಾCಾಂಶ 7ಾCಾಂಶ ಘನ *ಾ6Nಾಲಯದ 2ಾ6sKೆ 7ೇದ ೊಡೆಳವಂಗಲ ೕ ಾಾ ಸರಹದುW ೊಡಬ ಾ!ಪ#ರ $ಾಲೂಕು ೊಡ ೆಳವಂಗಲ =ೋಬ; ಕೂೆನಹ;! ಾ<ಮದ *ಾಯಕ EಾFೆ 7ೇದ 7ಾm 01 ರವರು ಎ4 ಆCೋsಯ =ೆಂಡFಯ Eೊ$ೆ ಅನುhತ2ಾV ನuೆದು8ೊಂHದW*ೆಂದು 7ಾm 01 ರವೆ ಬುe~ ಕಸೇ8ೆಂದು ಸವiೕ1ಯ ಒಕ\ಗರು EಾFೆ 7ೇದ 8ಾಲಂ ನಂ.12 ರ% ಕಂಡ ಎ1, ಎ2, ಎ3, ಎ4, ಎ5 ಮತುK ಎ11 ಆCೋsಗಳ] ಅಕ<ಮ ಗುಂಪ# ಕY8ೊಂಡು e*ಾಂಕ 02.02.2021ರಂದು CಾF< 9.30 ಗಂPೆ ಸಮಯದ% 7ಾm01 ರವರ ಮ*ೆೆ ಅFಕ<ಮ ಪ<2ೇಶ BಾH ಾVಲನುS =ೊuೆದು =ಾ4 7ಾm 01ರವರು ಎ% ಎಂದು ಗ-ಾPೆ BಾH ಎ2 ಮತುK ಎ3 ಆCೋsಗಳ] 7ಾm02 ರವರ 7ೊಂಟ8ೆ\ 8ಾGಂದ ಒದುW ಎ2, ಎ3 ಆCೋsಗಳ] ತಮU 8ೈಯ%ದW ೊೆlಗ;ಂದ 7ಾm 02, 03 ಮತುK 04 ರವೆ =ೊuೆದು 7ಾm 02 ಮತುK 03 ರವೆ 7ಾBಾನ6 ಸoರೂಪದ ಾಯಪHM 7ಾm 04 ರವೆ *ೋವ#ಂಟುBಾH ಎ11 ಆCೋsಯು =ೊH =ೊH ಎಂದು ಎ5 ಆCೋsೆ ಪ<vೋeMದWಂದ ಎ5 ಆCೋsಯು ತನS ಚಪ/ಯನುS $ೆೆದು8ೊಂಡು 7ಾm 02 ರವರ ತ-ೆೆ =ೊuೆದು ಅವBಾನಪHM ಮ*ೆಯ ವಸುKಗಳನುS ಚ-ಾ%s% BಾH ಎ1, ಎ2, ಎ3 ಮತುK ಎ4 ಆCೋsಗಳ] 7ಾm 01 ರವರ ಮ*ೆಯ ಮುಂೆ G%MದW ಸದಯವರ ¨Á§ÄÛ PÉJ-43-J¸ï-2700 ಅಾh ?ೕಟ 7ೈಕA ಅನುS ಜಖಂೊ;M ನಂತರ ಎ-ಾ% ಆCೋsಗಳ] ಅ2ಾಚ6 ಶಬWಗ;ಂದ ೈದು ೆ;ೆL GನS ಮಗ ಮಂಜು*ಾಥ ಊೆ ಬ1 ಕತKM =ಾ4KೕG GಮUಮU *ಾಯಕನನS PÁåAiÀÄ ಊನ% 15 ಮ*ೆ ಇCೋದು ಊರನುS {ಾ BಾHMKೕD ೆPೊ<ೕA ತಂದು GಮU ಮ*ೆ ಎ-ಾ% ಸುಟು =ಾ4KೕD ಅಂತ =ಾಗೂ ೕ ಕಂೆ%ೕಂ. 8ೊಟCೆ 8ೊ-ೆ Bಾಡುವ#ಾV ಾ<ಣ¨Éದ8ೆ =ಾ4 EಾF ೌಜ1ನ6ವಸVರ$ಾKCೆಂದು ಇದುವCೆಗೂ ನuೆMದ ತG8ೆTಂದ ದೃಢಪYರು$ೆK ಆದWಂದ tೕಲ\ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕ$ಾ6 ಆCೋsಗಳ Dರುದ~ =ೋಸಲ/ಟ ೋ•ಾCೋಪuÁ ಪY ಎ1, ಎ3, ಎ11 ಆCೋsಗಳ] ತ-ೆಮM8ೊಂHದುW ಎ5 ಆCೋs ಮೃತಪYರುvÁÛgÉ(J5 DgÉÆæ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ಸದ ಆCೋs ಕೃತ68ೆ\ ಬಳMದ ಚಪ/ಯನುS ಅBಾನತು ಪHM8ೊಳ!ಲು 7ಾಧ62ಾVರುವ#eಲ%.) J2, J6 ಂದ J10 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J12 jAzÀ 16 gÀವೆನ ಆCೋsಗಳ Dರುದ~ 7ಾmಾರರ =ೇ;8ೆಗ;ಂದ 7ಾm ರವರು ಘನ *ಾ6Nಾಲಯದ% ಕಲಂ 164 Mಆs1M ೕF GೕHರುವ =ೇ;8ೆTಂದ sNಾðದುಾರರ ಮುಂದುವCೆದ =ೇ;8ೆTಂದ =ಾಗೂ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 ತG8ೆTಂದ ಆCೋಪ 7ಾ,ೕ$ಾಗದ 8ಾರಣ ೋಷCೋಪಣ ಪYTಂದ 8ೈ ,Yರು$ೆK J3, J6 ಮತುK ಎ7 ಆCೋsಗ;ಬcರು ಒಬcCೇ ಆVರು$ಾKCೆ.” During the investigation, the police have also recorded the statement of the victim and the independent witnesses and they have also placed the wound certificate which shows that there are injuries though not grievous in nature but there are injuries that is a result of the assault by the petitioners on the mother of the complainant. 8. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance that there is assault and there is hurling of abuses, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial for the reason that what is projected before this Court, is a maze of facts which would amaze this Court for interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. If interfered in such cases, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 wherein it is held as follows: “9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In that light, Criminal Petitions lacking in merit, stand rejected for the petitioners to face trial and come out clean in such trial. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3289 CRL.P No. 8404 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 12903 of 2023 The observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the cases of these petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and that would not bind or influence the proceedings before the concerned Court. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13