Karnataka High Court
Smt. Saubagya vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621
CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202136 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAUBAGYA
W/O LATE. MALLIKARJUN SALMANI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O: WATCH CHOUK,
BHAHAMANA ONI,
LINGASUGURU - 584 122.
2. SRI. MAHANATAPPA
S/O DASHVANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/AT: PALAKANAMARDI,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA TQ: DEVADURGA,
UDAGI
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 115.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LINGASUGUR,
POLICE STATION,
BY STATE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, KALABURAGI
DIST AND TALUK - 585 103.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621
CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. HANUMANTRAYA
S/O. ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
KOTTADODDI VILLAGE, DEVADURGA TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MOHAMMED SHARIF AND
SRI SYED MOJIB HUSSEN, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS IN AGGRIEVED BY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL. C.5114/2024 AND CRIME NO.145/2022 U/SEC. 143, 147,
323, 355, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s)
SECTION 3(2) (va) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT 2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 PASSED BY THE I-
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR IN SPL.
C.5114/2024 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS/
PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 in Spl.C.No.5114/2024, arising out of Crime No.145/2022, -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR registered by Lingasugur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for brevity, 'the IPC'] and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 [for brevity, 'the SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act'].
2. The abridged facts of the case are, complainant/respondent No.2-Hanumantaraya belongs to Nayak caste and is the resident of Kottadoddi village. The petitioners and other accused belong to Lingayath community and they are the resident of Lingasugur. One Amareshappa i.e., father of accused No.3 and 4 received hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.2 in the year 2016-17. Subsequently, said Amareshappa died in the year 2020. As such, respondent No.2 approached accused Nos.3 and 4, who are the children of late Amareshappa for repayment of the loan amount. Though they agreed to pay the same, they kept on postponing the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR repayment. Finally on 19.07.2022, respondent No.2 approached accused Nos.3 and 4 at their house and requested for repayment of the hand loan obtained by their father. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 abused respondent No.2 in filthy language by mentioning his caste and assaulted him and foisted life threat to him. Petitioner No.2 along with accused No.5 were present at the scene of occurrence and allegedly instigated accused Nos.1 to 4 for their act. As such, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police against six accused persons.
3. On the strength of said complaint, respondent No.1-Police registered the case in Crime No.145/2022 dated 20.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 355, 109, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, by arraigning the petitioners as accused Nos.1 and 6. Subsequently, respondent No.1- Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR all six accused persons and the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 preferred this petition to quash the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the dispute involved in this case is purely civil in nature in respect of the hand loan obtained by the father of accused Nos.3 and
4. According to respondent No.2, the said Amareshappa died in the year 2020. Thereafter, for illegal gain, respondent No.2 used to harass accused Nos.3 and 4 for repayment of the amount. According to him, no such incident said to have caused as stated by respondent No.2. He also contended that petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 is the resident of Devadruga and he was not at all -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR present at the scene of occurrence on the date of incident and he was falsely implicated in this crime, as he is the father of accused No.1, who is the wife of accused No.3. In such circumstance, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer. He contended that, now that charge sheet has been laid against these petitioners by arraigning them as accused Nos.1 and 6. The complaint and charge sheet materials disclose the presence of the petitioners in the scene of occurrence and petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1 abused respondent No.2 by mentioning his caste and also assaulted him. Petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 instigated accused Nos.1 to 4 for their act. In such circumstance, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also opposed the prayer and prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR respective parties and the documents made available on record.
9. As could be gathered from the complaint and the charge sheet materials, the incident was said to have been caused for the reason that the father of accused Nos.3 and 4 allegedly obtained hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.2 in the year 2016-17. Later, he died in the year 2020. As such, respondent No.2 was insisting accused Nos.3 and 4 for repayment of the amount. Hence, on 19.07.2022, respondent No.2 visited the house of accused Nos.3 and 4 and demanded the amount, at that time, the alleged incident was caused.
10. On perusal of the complaint averments it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 abused respondent No.2 by mentioning his caste and allegedly assaulted him. However, in respect of petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 it is stated that, he was present in the scene of occurrence and allegedly instigated them. As such, the provisions of -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act do not attract against petitioner No.2. The charge sheet materials further disclosed that petitioner No.2 is aged about 75 years and residing at Devadurga. On perusal of the complaint averments it could be gathered that the complaint was filed against this petitioner by wreaking vengeance against petitioner No.2, since he is the father of accused No.1 who is the wife of accused No.3. Even otherwise, if the entire allegation in the complaint and charge sheet is taken on its face value, then also there is no offence made out against petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6. However, as discussed supra, there are prima facie materials placed against petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1.
11. 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. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
12. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 is clear abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1 is dismissed.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.6 in Spl.C.No. 5114/2024, arising out of Crime No.145/2022, registered by Lingasugur Police Station, for the offences
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621 CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025 HC-KAR punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, pending before the Trial Court, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT-VK