Karnataka High Court
Hulaganagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201587 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. HULAGANAGOUDA S/O. NARASANAGOUDA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KILARHATTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. DEVINDRAPPA S/O. HULAGAYYA NALATWAD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KILARHATTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
JAMKHANDI REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. GURULINGAMMA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. KILARHATTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.(OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF
PROCESS DATED 20.05.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.63/2025
(MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.144/2022 DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
CRL.P No. 201587 of 2025
HC-KAR
VIJAYAPURA) PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The petitioners/accused persons are before this Court
challenging the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 wherein
the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, post protest
memo and the sworn statement has taken cognizance in
C.C.No.63/2025 (arising out of Crime No.144/2022
registered by Muddebihal Police Station, Vijayapura
District), for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
354 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).
2. The second respondent-complainant lodged a
complaint alleging that on 16.06.2022, while she was in
her land bearing Sy.No.5/1 removing stones, the present
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 brought a surveyor to the
disputed land. When she questioned the re-survey,
accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language. It is
further alleged that accused No.2 twisted her left hand,
while accused No.1 assaulted her from behind and
outraged her modesty. On this complaint, the jurisdictional
police registered a crime, and after completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a 'B' final
report. The second respondent-complainant contested the
same by filing a protest memo. Upon recording the sworn
statement of the complainant and two witnesses, the
learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the
offences.
3. The primary contention urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the protest memo does
not fulfill the requirements of a "complaint" as defined
under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.,). Placing reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Veerappa and Others vs. Bhimareddappa
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
[ILR 2002 KAR 1665], he contends that the protest
memo does not advert to the alleged overt acts and
therefore, cannot be treated as a valid complaint under
Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. He submits that the essential
factual averments constituting the offences under Sections
323, 354 and 504 of IPC are completely absent in the
protest memo, and consequently, the order taking
cognizance is unsustainable and contrary to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader, drawing attention to the sworn statement
material, submitted that there is sufficient incriminating
evidence to proceed against the accused. Therefore,
according to him, the order of the learned Magistrate
taking cognizance does not suffer from any legal infirmity,
and no interference is warranted.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on careful consideration of the protest memo filed in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
response to the 'B' final report submitted by the
Investigating Officer, this Court now proceeds to examine
its contents.
6. Before undertaking such examination, it is
apposite to reproduce the protest memo submitted by the
complainant. The same reads as under:
"¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¸À°¹
è zÀ ©. j¥ÉÆÃnðUÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
EzÀg°
À è ¦gÁå¢üAiÀÄÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ©. j¥ÉÆÃnðUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ
vÀPg
À ÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼV
À £ÀAwgÀÄvÀÛª.É
1) ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁwUÉ M¼ÀUÁV ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ
¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî CAvÁ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀg¢
À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸À°¹
è gÀÄvÁÛg.É
2) ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëU¼À £
À ÀÄß PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è
vÁªÉà ¸ÁQëU¼ À À ºÉýPÉU¼
À £
À ÄÀ ß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸À°¹
è gÀÄvÁÛg.É
3) ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ UÀÄ£Áß eÁUÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃn PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, oÁuÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ
PÀĽvÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ vÀ¥ÀÄà
ªÀg¢À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É
4) DgÉÆævÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¦gÁå¢ ¥ÀgÀ
¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqAÉ iÀÄzÉà vÁªÉà ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀÄdPÀÆj£À
ªÀg¢
À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ PÁgÀt ¸Àzj À ©. j¥ÉÆÃlð£ÀÄß vÀ½î
ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
5) ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©vÀ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¹zÀݽzÀÄÝ D §UÉÎ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ vÀ£Àß ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹ vÀ£Àß
PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¹zÀݽgÀÄvÁÛ¼.É
CAvÀÆ PÁgÀtUÀ¼£
À ÀÄß ¥ÀgÁªÀIJ𹠥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ©.
j¥ÉÆÃlð£ÀÄß vÀ½îºÁQ ¦gÁå¢ ¥ÀgÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëU¼
À £
À ÀÄß
vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÉ®¸À £Àq¸
É ¨
À ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ §gÀPÉÆAqÀ
vÀPg
À ÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ."
7. On a careful reading of the extract of the protest
memo, this Court is required to consider whether the
learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 504
read with Section 34 of IPC. A perusal of the protest
memo in its entirety makes it evident that the foundational
facts necessary to constitute the said offences are
conspicuously absent. Though the complainant has
questioned the correctness of the 'B' final report, the
protest memo does not specifically narrate the allegations
of assault so as to attract Section 323 IPC, nor does it
advert to the allegations that accused No.1 assaulted the
complainant and attempted to outrage her modesty so as
to bring the matter within the ambit of Section 354 IPC.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
Similarly, the ingredients of Section 504 IPC is also not set
out with the required degree of specificity. Thus, the
protest memo, as presented, fails to disclose the essential
factual averments that would constitute the offences
alleged.
8. It is a well-settled principle that where a criminal
case originates from a police complaint and, after
investigation, a 'B' final report is filed, the protest memo
filed by the complainant must, in substance, satisfy the
parameters of a "complaint" as defined under Section 2(d)
of Cr.P.C. This requirement stands on a different footing
from situations where a 'B' report is filed in response to a
private complaint lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The
distinction between the two categories as well as the
necessity for strict compliance with Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
when the case is police-initiated has been elaborately
discussed and authoritatively clarified by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to
hereinabove.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
9. In the present case, since the registration of
crime was undeniably based on a police complaint and not
on a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the
protest memo ought to have been drafted in strict
conformity with the mandate of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
However, the protest memo suffers from fundamental
deficiencies, inasmuch as, it does not disclose the basic
ingredients of the offences alleged. Consequently, the
sworn statement recorded by the learned Magistrate,
having been founded upon a defective and legally
insufficient protest memo, does not cure the inherent
defect. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed a
clear error in law in taking cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 504 read with
Section 34 IPC.
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and applying the legal
position laid down therein to the facts of the present case,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
this Court finds that the impugned order taking cognizance
of the aforementioned offences is unsustainable. The
protest memo being inadequate in law, the consequential
proceedings, including the order of cognizance, cannot be
allowed to stand.
11. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, in C.C.No.63/2025
(arising out of Crime No.144/2022 registered by
Muddebihal Police Station, Vijayapura District), taking
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323,
354 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby
quashed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7001
HC-KAR
It is, however, made clear that the complainant is at
liberty, if she so chooses, to file an appropriate complaint
before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NB
CT:SI
