Karnataka High Court
Hulaganagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201587 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. HULAGANAGOUDA S/O. NARASANAGOUDA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KILARHATTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. DEVINDRAPPA S/O. HULAGAYYA NALATWAD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KILARHATTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
JAMKHANDI REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. GURULINGAMMA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. KILARHATTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.(OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF
PROCESS DATED 20.05.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.63/2025
(MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.144/2022 DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025
HC-KAR
VIJAYAPURA) PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The petitioners/accused persons are before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 wherein the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, post protest memo and the sworn statement has taken cognizance in C.C.No.63/2025 (arising out of Crime No.144/2022 registered by Muddebihal Police Station, Vijayapura District), for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The second respondent-complainant lodged a complaint alleging that on 16.06.2022, while she was in her land bearing Sy.No.5/1 removing stones, the present -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 brought a surveyor to the disputed land. When she questioned the re-survey, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language. It is further alleged that accused No.2 twisted her left hand, while accused No.1 assaulted her from behind and outraged her modesty. On this complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a crime, and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a 'B' final report. The second respondent-complainant contested the same by filing a protest memo. Upon recording the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the offences.
3. The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the protest memo does not fulfill the requirements of a "complaint" as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.,). Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Veerappa and Others vs. Bhimareddappa -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR [ILR 2002 KAR 1665], he contends that the protest memo does not advert to the alleged overt acts and therefore, cannot be treated as a valid complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. He submits that the essential factual averments constituting the offences under Sections 323, 354 and 504 of IPC are completely absent in the protest memo, and consequently, the order taking cognizance is unsustainable and contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, drawing attention to the sworn statement material, submitted that there is sufficient incriminating evidence to proceed against the accused. Therefore, according to him, the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and no interference is warranted.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the protest memo filed in -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR response to the 'B' final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, this Court now proceeds to examine its contents.
6. Before undertaking such examination, it is apposite to reproduce the protest memo submitted by the complainant. The same reads as under:
"¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¸À°¹ è zÀ ©. j¥ÉÆÃnðUÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀg° À è ¦gÁå¢üAiÀÄÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ©. j¥ÉÆÃnðUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ vÀPg À ÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼV À £ÀAwgÀÄvÀÛª.É
1) ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁwUÉ M¼ÀUÁV ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî CAvÁ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°¹ è gÀÄvÁÛg.É
2) ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëU¼À £ À ÀÄß PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è vÁªÉà ¸ÁQëU¼ À À ºÉýPÉU¼ À £ À ÄÀ ß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°¹ è gÀÄvÁÛg.É
3) ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ UÀÄ£Áß eÁUÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃn PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, oÁuÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà PÀĽvÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀg¢À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É
4) DgÉÆævÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¦gÁå¢ ¥ÀgÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqAÉ iÀÄzÉà vÁªÉà ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀÄdPÀÆj£À ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ PÁgÀt ¸Àzj À ©. j¥ÉÆÃlð£ÀÄß vÀ½î ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR
5) ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©vÀ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¹zÀݽzÀÄÝ D §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ vÀ£Àß ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹ vÀ£Àß PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¹zÀݽgÀÄvÁÛ¼.É CAvÀÆ PÁgÀtUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀgÁªÀIJ𹠥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ©. j¥ÉÆÃlð£ÀÄß vÀ½îºÁQ ¦gÁå¢ ¥ÀgÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëU¼ À £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀPæ g À t À zÀ°è ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÉ®¸À £Àq¸ É ¨ À ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ §gÀPÉÆAqÀ vÀPg À ÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ."
7. On a careful reading of the extract of the protest memo, this Court is required to consider whether the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. A perusal of the protest memo in its entirety makes it evident that the foundational facts necessary to constitute the said offences are conspicuously absent. Though the complainant has questioned the correctness of the 'B' final report, the protest memo does not specifically narrate the allegations of assault so as to attract Section 323 IPC, nor does it advert to the allegations that accused No.1 assaulted the complainant and attempted to outrage her modesty so as to bring the matter within the ambit of Section 354 IPC. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR Similarly, the ingredients of Section 504 IPC is also not set out with the required degree of specificity. Thus, the protest memo, as presented, fails to disclose the essential factual averments that would constitute the offences alleged.
8. It is a well-settled principle that where a criminal case originates from a police complaint and, after investigation, a 'B' final report is filed, the protest memo filed by the complainant must, in substance, satisfy the parameters of a "complaint" as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. This requirement stands on a different footing from situations where a 'B' report is filed in response to a private complaint lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The distinction between the two categories as well as the necessity for strict compliance with Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. when the case is police-initiated has been elaborately discussed and authoritatively clarified by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. In the present case, since the registration of crime was undeniably based on a police complaint and not on a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the protest memo ought to have been drafted in strict conformity with the mandate of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. However, the protest memo suffers from fundamental deficiencies, inasmuch as, it does not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. Consequently, the sworn statement recorded by the learned Magistrate, having been founded upon a defective and legally insufficient protest memo, does not cure the inherent defect. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed a clear error in law in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC.
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and applying the legal position laid down therein to the facts of the present case, -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR this Court finds that the impugned order taking cognizance of the aforementioned offences is unsustainable. The protest memo being inadequate in law, the consequential proceedings, including the order of cognizance, cannot be allowed to stand.
11. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, in C.C.No.63/2025 (arising out of Crime No.144/2022 registered by Muddebihal Police Station, Vijayapura District), taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001 CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025 HC-KAR It is, however, made clear that the complainant is at liberty, if she so chooses, to file an appropriate complaint before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12 CT:SI