Karnataka High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200163 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SUNIL S/O GANGARAM NAYAK,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT OF P.HD,
R/O. JEEROLI TANDA VILLAGE,
TQ.ALAND, DIST.KALABURAGI,
NOW PRESENTLY R/AT,
NRUPTUNGA RESEARCH HOSTEL,
KALABURAGI UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI-585102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
Location: HIGH SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REP.BY ADDL.SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SUSHMA D/O SUBHASH RATHOD,
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KALABURAGI,
R/O. H. NO. PLOT 140. JAWAR,
HOUSING BOARD SOCIETY, SHAHABAD ROAD,
RAJAPUR KALABURAGI,
TQ. AND DIST.KALABURAGI-585102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO,
ALLOW THIS PETITION OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
QUASH THE CRIME NO. 17 OF 2025 OF UNIVERSITY POLICE
STATION KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC
3(5), 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023, AGAINST THE PETITIONER
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI AS SAME IS NOTHING BUT ABUSE
OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash
the FIR registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The
corresponding offences under the old act are under
Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the complainant that she was
working as an Engineer at Irrigation Department,
Kalaburagi. She stated to have lodged a complaint against
her maternal uncle stating that he was forcing her for
marriage. It is further stated that on 21.01.2025, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
elders have fixed her engagement ceremony to be
performed with another person. However, the accused
after coming to know about the engagement, approached
the family members of the bridegroom and threatened the
family members and restrained them from in performing
the engagement ceremony.
3. On 08.01.2025 around about 3.30 p.m., when
the complainant and her brother had been to State Bank
of India and when they were returning from the said Bank,
she saw that the petitioner was sitting on the dais along
with his friends, which was situated opposite to the said
bank, the complainant went and asked him as to why he
was spoiling her life. At that time, he said to have replied
in a boastful manner and also threatened her with dire
consequences. Therefore, she lodged a complaint
requesting to take suitable action against the
accused/petitioner.
4. The jurisdictional police after receiving the
complaint issued an endorsement stating that it is non-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
cognizable offence and hence, FIR cannot be registered
against said offence. Further, it is suggested to obtain
permission from the Jurisdictional Magistrate to register
FIR.
5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Ravi Bheemsingh
Chawan for the petitioner, Sri G.B.Yadav, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
learned counsel Sri Avinash A. Uploankar for respondent
No.2.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that though the alleged incident had taken place
on 08.01.2025, complaint came to be registered on
20.01.2025. Moreover, the said complaint came to be
registered as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the
petitioner against the complainant and her family
members.
7. It is further submitted that the averments made
in the said complaint would not disclose the ingredients of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the
procedure to register the FIR in respect of non-cognizable
offences has not been followed, therefore, the FIR has to
be quashed. Making such submission, he prays to quash
the FIR and its consequential proceedings.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently justified the registration of FIR and he
submitted that on 19.01.2025, a complaint was lodged
before the respondent - police and on the following day,
after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, FIR came
to be registered against the petitioner/accused. As such,
the required procedure has been followed and therefore,
there is no infirmity in registering the FIR. Thus, he prays
to reject the petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for respective
parties and also perused the averments of the complaint,
no doubt, the complainant has lodged a complaint making
certain allegations against the petitioner. However, it is
stated that the incident had occurred on 08.01.2025 and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner
on 20.01.2025. Though, the delay has been explained in
the said FIR stating that the complaint has been lodged
after discussing the matter with the family members about
the incident, the fact remains that, the said complaint
came to be registered as a counter blast as against the
complaint, which was filed by the petitioner herein against
the complainant and her family members in PCR
No.746/2024 on 12.11.2024.
10. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others1,
wherein at paragraph No.102, it is held as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant provisions
of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way
of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer 1992 Supp. (1)
335 without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
11. On reading of the above said judgment, the
ratio laid down in the said case squarely applicable to the
case on hand and it is a fit case to quash the FIR. It is
also needless to state that the FIR filed against the
petitioner cannot be survived even on the ground that the
procedure as prescribed has not been followed by the
respondent - police for the alleged offences.
12. Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates the
procedure prescribed to register the FIR in case of non-
cognizable offences. Permission from the Magistrate has
to be obtained by the complainant by filing private
complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In this case, no
such procedure has been followed. Therefore, the FIR has
to be quashed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418
13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.17/2025
registered by University Police Station,
Kalaburagi City, against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 352,
351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending
before the learned III Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Kalaburagi stands quashed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
