Karnataka High Court
Sareeta vs The State on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413
CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200095 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SAREETA
W/O NARASIMHULU SIRUVATI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KUNCHAWARAM, TQ: CHINCHOLI
NOW RESIDING AT HO.NO 1-891/72/2,
GANESH NAGAR, OPP TO P AND T QUARTERS,
KALABURAGI-585103
2. ARCHIT KUMAR @ MEETU
S/O NARASIMHULU SIRUVATI,
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed by R/O MAHADEVAPPA GOUDA LAW COLLEGE,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA BIDAR, BIDAR-585401
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. RAHUL
S/O NARASIMHULU SIRUVATI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BOSE MILITARY SCHOOL,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585102
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVASHARANA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413
CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE
THROUGH KUNCHAWARAM P.S
TQ: CHINCHOLLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585103
(REPT BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI BENCH)
2. SMT. SHREEDEVI
W/O MOHAN KADAMANCHI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KUNCHAWARAM, TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585305
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.B.YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET AND
ITS PROCEEDINGS INITIATED THEREOF AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.45/2023 REGISTERED IN
C.C.NO.1422/2024 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 KUNCHAWARAM P.S.
TALUK-CHINCHOLI PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHINCHOLLI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 143,147,341,504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413
CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1422/2024, arising out of Crime No.45/2023, registered by Kunchawaram Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that on 07.09.2023 at about 11.00 a.m., when the petitioners are constructing a compound wall to their house premises, the complainant and her husband questioned the same. At that time, these petitioners abused the complainant in filthy language and when her husband came to pacify the quarrel, they given life threat to him. As such, she lodged the complaint on 26.12.2023, which registered in Crime No.45/2023 for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1- -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413 CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026 HC-KAR Police laid a charge sheet against the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. Though notice is served to respondent No.2, she remained absent.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1 lodged a complaint against the complainant, her husband and family members on 07.09.2023 while constructing the compound wall to their house. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.33/2023 dated 07.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, r/w 149 of IPC. As a counter blast for the said complaint, the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant after lapse -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413 CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026 HC-KAR of 110 days with the similar allegations. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition on the ground that, as a counter complaint, this case has been filed for the incident held on 07.09.2023. However, the delay in filing the complaint is for the reason that the husband of complainant is Public Prosecutor, as such, she afraid to lodge the complaint due to the consequences of criminal case. Accordingly, he submits that there are prima facie materials forthcoming against the petitioners and now the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents available on record. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413 CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. It is the case of the complainant that when the petitioner/accused No.1 and her family members were constructing the compound wall to their house, the complainant and her husband questioned the same, as such the alleged incident was caused. In respect of the said incident, petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1 lodged the complaint, which was registered against the complainant and her family members in Crime No.33/2023 as stated supra. In the said complaint, it is categorically stated that the complainant and her husband questioned the construction of compound wall and made an attempt to assault the petitioners by abusing them in filthy language. Later, after 110 days of registration of the said FIR, the present complaint is lodged by the complainant as a counter blast. The delay in lodging this complaint has not been properly explained by the complainant except stating that, since her husband is a Public Prosecutor, she afraid of the consequences of criminal proceedings. The said explanation is not a probable one. On overall perusal of -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413 CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026 HC-KAR the complaint averments and other charge sheet materials, except the vague and omnibus allegations against this petitioners, absolutely there are no prima facie case made out against the petitioners for the offences they have been charge sheeted.
8. It is now well settled that, continuation of criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are leveled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, held that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413 CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026 HC-KAR circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. On the other hand, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstance emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into a count the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
9. I am of the considered view that, even if entire allegation in the FIR and other documents taken into consideration on its face value, no case has been made -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1413 CRL.P No. 200095 of 2026 HC-KAR against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. Hence, continuation of proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.1422/2024, arising out of Crime
No.45/2023, registered by Kunchawaram
Police, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 341, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT-BH