Sri Jayaraj Talageri vs State By
2025 Latest Caselaw 1364 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Jayaraj Talageri vs State By on 9 June, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                          -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:19611
                                                 CRL.P No. 11616 of 2024


              HC-KAR



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                        BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11616 OF 2024
                               (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

              BETWEEN:

              1.    SRI JAYARAJ TALAGERI
                    S/O LATE NARAYAN NAYAK
                    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                    RESIDENT AT ZUVARI GARDEN CITY,
                    HULIKERE VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI,
                    S.R. PATNA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 606.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
              (BY SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              1.    STATE BY
                    K.R. SAGAR P.S.
Digitally
signed by H         S.R. PATNA TALUK,
K HEMA              MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606
Location:
HIGH                REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA           HIGH COURT BUILDING
                    BENGALURU - 560 001.

              2.    RAMA
                    S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
                    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                    RESIDENT AT #61/A, MNPM COLONY
                    HULIKERE VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI
                    S.R. PATNA TALUK,
                    MANDYA - 571 606.

                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:19611
                                           CRL.P No. 11616 of 2024


HC-KAR



(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R.1;
R.2: SERVED.)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED    CHARGE    SHEET     DATED    03.05.2023 IN
CR.NO.55/2023, K.R. SAGAR P.S., FILED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 POLICE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 341, SECTION 504 AND SECTION 506 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, (ANNEXURE-A), ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR


                             ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased, in the interests of justice and equity;

a. QUASH the impugned Charge Sheet dated 03.05.2023 in CR.No.55/2023, K.R. Sagar P.S. filed by Respondent No.1 Police before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, Mandya for offence under Section 341, Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE-A); and

NC: 2025:KHC:19611

HC-KAR

b. GRANT such further and other orders and / or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP

for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

Respondent No.2-de-facto complainant having been served with

notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has

not contested the petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that

the petitioner is working as a Senior Manager at Zuari Infraworld

India Limited and is in-charge of administration of the property of

Zuari Garden City in Hulikere Village, Belagola Hobli,

Srirangapatna, Mandya District. It is contended that respondent

No.2 was one of the representative of the Hulikere Gram

Panchayat and when the petitioner approached respondent No.2 -

defacto complainant, respondent No.2 demanded personal favours

and petitioner refused to comply with the demand made by the

respondent No.2, who proceeded to cause damage to the private

property of the Company where the petitioner was working. It is

NC: 2025:KHC:19611

HC-KAR

further contended that the petitioner filed a complaint on

06.09.2022 against respondent No.2 and FIR came to be

registered in Crime No.0175/2022 dated 12.9.2022 for the offences

punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34

of the IPC and charge sheet in this regard has been filed on

30.03.2023. It is further pointed out that in the meanwhile the

second respondent filed a false and frivolous complaint dated

10.3.2023 by way of a counter blast to the complaint already filed

by the petitioner and thereafter, proceeded to file a private

complaint in PCR No.4/2023 and it was referred to police for

investigation and an FIR was registered in Crime No.55/2023 and

currently pending in C.C.No.176/2023, which is assailed in the

present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite to the

material on record and contend that in the light of the undisputed

fact that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint against

respondent No.2, the impugned proceedings initiated by

respondent No.2 subsequently by way of a counter blast would

tantamount to abuse of process of law and the same deserves to

be quashed.

NC: 2025:KHC:19611

HC-KAR

5. Secondly, he would submit that a perusal of the FIR,

charge sheet material, document, statement of witnesses etc.,

would clearly indicate that the alleged offences have not been

made out in the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner and the

same deserves to the quashed on this ground. In support of her

submission, she has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court

in the case of Vasanth Kumar B.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and

Another - Crl.P.No.10697/2023 dated 28.01.2025.

6. As stated supra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

- defacto complainant has remained absent and has not contested

the present petition.

7. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the impugned proceedings are counter blast to the

earlier complaint already instituted by the petitioner is concerned,

the material on record clearly establishes the said fact as is clear

from the complaint dated 06.09.2022 and FIR dated 12.9.2022 filed

by the petitioner is much earlier to the impugned proceedings

initiated by respondent No.2 and consequently, in the light of the

principles laid down in this regard in Vasanth Kumar's case supra, I

NC: 2025:KHC:19611

HC-KAR

am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings

deserves to be quashed.

8. Insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 341,

504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, this Court in Vasanth Kumar's

case held as under:-

"In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:

"Wherefore, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash FIR in Cr.No.142/2023 of Electronic City Police which has been registered for the offences punishable U/s 341, 504, 506 of IPC which is pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bangalore Rural at Bangalore and pass any other relief/s which deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of the justice and equity."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.2 having served with notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the dispute between the petitioner's father and respondent No.2 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.43 of Bettadasanapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South

NC: 2025:KHC:19611

HC-KAR

Taluk, father of the petitioner filed a complaint on 28.06.2023 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East Division, Bengaluru. By way of counter blast to the same, respondent No.2 filed the impugned complaint against the petitioner in relation to alleged non-cognizable offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC without taking necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate.

4. Further, in order to ensure that FIR is registered against the petitioner, respondent No.2 appears to have invoked Section 341 of IPC in respect of which necessary ingredients are completely absent in the impugned complaint and FIR. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Joseph Kanthraj Vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.9944/2021 dated 03.09.2022 wherein it is held that whenever a complaint is filed as a counter blast to an earlier complaint given by the petitioner, the complaint is liable to be quashed coupled with the fact that without necessary ingredients, Section 341 of IPC had been deliberately with malafide intention invoked only with the oblique motive / purpose of circumventing obtaining of permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate in relation to non-cognizable offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, I am of the opinion that the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned is an abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed.

5. In the result, I pass the following: