[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mariyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202000 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MARIYAMMA W/O LORENCE
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NURSE
WORKING AT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
JAWALAGERA, R/O RAITANAGAR CAMP,
TALUK SINDHANUR, DIST:RAICHUR-584128.
NOW RESIDING AT NEAR CHURCH JAWALAGERA
TALUK SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584128
2. MUTTAMMA W/O PURANDAR
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: COMMUNITY HEALTH OFFICER
Digitally signed by WORKING AT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA KORLAGUNDI, R/O RAITANAGAR CAMP,
UDAGI
TALUK SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584128
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NOW AT WARD NO.1, PARVATHI NAGAR,
KARNATAKA
NEAR ESWAR TEMPLE, BELLARY-583101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI BENCH
(THROUGH SINDHANUR RURAL P.S.,
DIST: RAICHUR-584128)
2. SMT. HULIGEMMA W/O SHARANAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: TECHNICIAN
R/O RAITANAGAR CAMP,
TALUK SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584128
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD), BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED
17-10-2025 AND FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.
2962/2025 (CRIME NO.73/2025) REGISTERED BY THE
SINDHANUR RURAL P.S FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC. 352, 115(2), 329(4), 74, 49, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF
BNS- 2023 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SINDHANUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.4
and 5 in C.C.No.2962/2025, arising out of Crime No.73/2025
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
registered by Sindhanur Rural Police, for the offences
punishable under Sections 352, 115(2), 329(4), 74, 49, 351(2)
r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent
No.2's husband is owning self acquired properties, the
petitioners being his sisters, instigated accused Nos.1 and 2
i.e., brothers of respondent No.2's husband, not to give any
share in the ancestral properties. Further, accused Nos.1 and 2
used to threaten respondent No.2 by roaming around her house
by holding deadly weapons stating that they would do away the
life of her husband. Further, on 03.04.2025, they knocked the
door of her house and damaged the water pipes. Later, on
05.04.2025 at about 7:30 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 by holding
deadly weapons trespassed the house of respondent No.2 and
foisted life threat to her and her husband and also outraged her
modesty. As such, she lodged the complaint against the
petitioners and others on 05.04.2025 before respondent No.1-
Police in Crime No.73/2025 for the aforesaid offences.
Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police after conducting
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioners and
others by arraying the petitioners as accused Nos.4 and 5.
Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this
petition to quash the proceedings against them.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that, except
omnibus allegation against these petitioners in the complaint
and charge sheet, absolutely no prima facie case is made out
against them for the offences they are charge sheeted.
According to him, as per Section 54 of BNS, 2023, the presence
of abettor is necessary in the alleged scene of occurrence. As
per the complaint and charge sheet averments, these
petitioners neither present in the scene of occurrence nor
participated in the crime. In such circumstances, Section 49 of
BNS, 2023, does not attract against these petitioners. By
placing reliance on the certificate issued by the officer of the
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
petitioners, he contended that the petitioners were in their
office on duty and at no point of time, they involved in the
alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently contended that, these petitioners being the sister-
in-laws of respondent No.2 are root cause for the incident,
though they have not participated in the incident. He also
contended that, now the charge sheet is laid and CW.8 has
stated about the instigation of these petitioners, as such, the
proceedings cannot be quashed against them. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned HCGP also opposed the petition and prays
to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties
and the documents available on record.
8. As could be gathered from records, the allegation in
the complaint against these petitioners is, they instigated
accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., their brothers not give any share in
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
the ancestral property to the husband of respondent No.2, who
is also one of their brother. Except this allegation, absolutely no
other allegation/overt act is forthcoming against them.
Admittedly, on the date of incident they were not in the scene
of occurrence. Further, as per the document placed by the
petitioners, petitioner No.1 being a nurse at Primary Health
Centre, Jawalagera, was on duty on the date of incident i.e.,
05.04.2025 at 8:00 a.m. and petitioner No.2 being the Health
Officer at Health and Family Department, Ballary, was on duty
from 04.04.2025 to 07.04.2025. The certificates affixed with
the Attendance Register and those certificates were issued by
the Authorized Officer of their respective Departments. In such
circumstance, the presence of the petitioners in the alleged
spot of incident appears to be doubtful.
9. Nevertheless, allegations in the complaint and
charge sheet materials are omnibus in nature and admittedly,
since the dispute arisen between respondent No.2 and
petitioners was in respect of sharing of landed property,
credence cannot be attached to the complaint and charge sheet
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
materials in respect of the petitioners' involvement in the
alleged offences.
10. It is well settled that continuation of criminal
proceedings against any person on the basis of a frivolous or
vexatious complaint is something very serious. That 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. 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
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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.
11. Applying the said principles of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of
this case, I am of the considered view that the FIR and charge
sheet filed against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 based
on the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and the same is
registered with an ulterior motive. Even if the entire allegation
made in the charge sheet materials taken on its face value,
there is no such prima facie case made out against
petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5. As such, continuation of
proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 is nothing
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1426
CRL.P No. 202000 of 2025
HC-KAR
but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in
C.C.No.2962/2025, arising out of Crime
No.73/2025 registered by Sindhanur Rural
Police, for the offences punishable under
Sections 352, 115(2), 329(4), 74, 49, 351(2)
r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending on
the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sindhanur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
CT-BH
