Karnataka High Court
Ravi Shankar B N vs State Of Karnataka By on 10 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19890
CRL.P No. 11317 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11317 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI SHANKAR B. N.,
S/O. NEELAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 08, NISARGA,
2ND CROSS, SUGUMA LAYOUT,
NYANAPPANAHALLI,
NEAR DLF NEW TOWN, BEGUR,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
2. POORNIMA @ ANNAPURNA B. N.,
W/O. RAMESHA C. N.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 20, ANUGRAHA,
4TH CROSS, NANJUNDAIAH LAYOUT,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
BEGUR,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
Digitally
signed by
CHANDANA 3. RAMESHA. C. N.
BM
S/O. NINGAPPA,
Location:
High Court of AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Karnataka R/AT NO. 20, ANUGRAHA,
4TH CROSS, NANJUNDAIAH LAYOUT,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
BEGUR,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNEETH. B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
WOMEN PS, SOUTH EAST DIVISION,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19890
CRL.P No. 11317 of 2024
HC-KAR
(REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001).
2. G. NAGAMANI
S/O. RAVISHANKAR B. N.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 30, 4TH MAIN,
MARUTHI NAGARA,
NEAR NAYARA PETROL BUNK,
100 FEET ROAD,
SONNENAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO. 21505/2024 OF SOUTH EAST WOMEN PS
REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498(A), 504, 506, 323 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT,
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDL. CMM
COURT, BANGALORE CITY.
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, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
"Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to quash the proceeding against the petitioners in
C.C.No.21505/2024 of South East Women Police Station
registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A,
504, 506, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act,
NC: 2025:KHC:19890
HC-KAR
which is pending on the file of the XXXIX Addl. CMM
Court, Bengaluru City in the ends of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
respondent No.2-defacto complainant is none other than the wife
of petitioner No.1-accused No.1 in C.C.No.21505/2024, which is
pending pursuant to the complaint dated 31.03.2024 filed by
respondent No.2 against the petitioners/accused persons. It is an
undisputed fact that petitioner No.2-accused No.3 is the sister of
petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 - accused No.5 is the brother
of accused No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo
seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the present petition qua
petitioner No.1/accused No.1/husband with liberty to seek
discharge before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that insofar
as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned which are arraigned as
accused Nos.3 and 5 / sister and brother of petitioner No.1 are
concerned, except bald, vague and omnibus allegations, specific
NC: 2025:KHC:19890
HC-KAR
details and material particulars of commission of alleged offences
qua petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are conspicuously absent in the
impugned FIR, charge sheet material, documents, statement of
witnesses etc. Consequently, in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the cases of Digambar and Anr., Vs. State of
Maharashtra - 2024 INSC 1019, Kailashben Mahendrabhai
Patel and ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr - 2024 SCC
OnlineSC 2621 and Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs. The State of
Telangana and ors - 2025 INSC 160, the impugned proceedings
deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the material on record comprising of FIR,
complaint, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses,
documents etc., would indicate that insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and
3/accused Nos.3 and 5 are concerned, the allegations are general,
bald and omnibus in nature and in the absence of any material and
in the light of the aforesaid judgments of Apex Court, the
NC: 2025:KHC:19890
HC-KAR
impugned proceedings qua petitioner Nos.2 and 3 deserves to be
quashed.
7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby disposed of.
ii) The petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned,
the same stands withdrawn reserving liberty in favour
of petitioner No.1 to seek discharge before the Trial
Court.
iii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.21505/2024 on
the file of XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, insofar as petitioner
Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 5 are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
