[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Marenna @ Mareppa And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
CRL.P No. 201332 of 2024
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. 201332 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MARENNA @ MAREPPA
S/O TIPPANNA TALAVAR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
RESIDENT OF NARIBOLA VILLAGE,
TQ: JEWARGI, KALABURAGI-585204
2. MALLIKARJUN
S/O MARENNA TALAVAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA R/O NARIBOL TQ: JEWARGI
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI DIST: KALABURAGI-585204
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. SHIVALINGAMMA
W/O MARENNA TALAVAR @ MAREPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDENT OF NARIBOLA VILLAGE,
TQ: JEWARGI, DIST:KALABURAGI-585204
4. SURESH
S/O MARENNA TALAVAR @ MAREPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGTI,
R/O NARIBOLA VILLAGE, TQ: JEWARGI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
CRL.P No. 201332 of 2024
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI-585204
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR RAO.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JEWARGI P.S RPTD. BY,ASSP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI.
2. SHARANAPPA S/O TIPPANNA TALAWAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
NARIBOL VILLAGE, TQ: JEWARGI
DIST: KALABURAGI-585204
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL
PETITION AND BE PLEASED TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.866/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, JEWARGI, THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRIME NO.182/2019 OF JEWARGI P.S
COGNIZANCE TAKEN AGAINST HIM BY THE COURT BELOW AT
ANNEXURE-E RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
CRL.P No. 201332 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.866/2021, arising out of Crime No.182/2019,
registered by Jewargi Police, for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 504 and 506 r/w
Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Jewargi.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent
No.2/complainant lodged a complaint against the
petitioners on 31.08.2019 alleging that petitioner Nos.1
and 3 are husband and wife; and petitioner Nos.2 and 4
are their sons and there was a civil dispute in respect of
ancestral property bearing Sy.No.222 measuring 14 acres
18 guntas. According to him, out of the said land, he is
cultivating 9 guntas of land. On the intervening night of
17.08.2019 and 18.08.2019, these petitioners trespassed
the land being cultivated by respondent No.2 with a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
HC-KAR
tractor and destroyed the crops therein. As such, he
lodged the complaint on 31.08.2019 to respondent No.1-
Police against the petitioners and another in Crime
No.182/2019. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police have
filed charge sheet against the petitioners and another for
the aforementioned offences by arraying these petitioners
as accused Nos.1 to 4. Accordingly, the Learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State. Though notice is served to respondent No.2,
he remained absent.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint
has been lodged by respondent No.2 after lapse of 17
days. Admittedly, there are civil disputes pending between
respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, who are none other
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
HC-KAR
than the brothers. In such circumstance, in order to give
criminal colour to the civil dispute, a false complaint has
been foisted by respondent No.2. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the
prayer and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents made available on
record.
7. As could be gathered from the complaint and
charge sheet materials, admittedly there are civil disputes
between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, who are
none other than the brothers. These petitioners have also
filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.201784/2017, seeking mandamus for
non-registration of FIR by the jurisdictional Police in
respect of the property bearing Sy.No.222, since several
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
HC-KAR
cases have been registered against him and his family
members. In the said writ petition, this Court vide order
05.06.2017, directed the jurisdictional Police, not to
harass the petitioners by registering the criminal cases
against them. Despite the same, the case has been
registered against the petitioners.
8. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, it is stated in the complaint that in the
intervening night of 17.08.2019 and 18.08.2019, the
petitioners trespassed the property of respondent No.2
along with a tractor and destroyed the standing crop of
toor dal and cotton. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses
to the incident. However, after lapse of 17 days, the
complaint has been registered. In such circumstances, it
could be gathered that, in order to give criminal colour, a
false complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2.
9. It is now well settled that continuation of
criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a
frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
HC-KAR
This 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 other hand,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstance emerging from the record of the case over
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
HC-KAR
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.
10. I am of the considered view that, even if the
entire allegation in the FIR, charge sheet and other
documents taken into consideration on its face value, no
case has been made against the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 4 for the offences they have been charge sheeted.
Hence, continuation of proceedings against them is abuse
of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3070
HC-KAR
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.866/2021, arising out of Crime
No.182/2019, registered by Jewargi Police,
for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 447, 427, 504 and 506 r/w Section
149 of IPC, pending on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Jewargi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16
CT-BH
