[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Deepak Doshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619
                                                        CRL.P No. 200363 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200363 OF 2025
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

                      BETWEEN:
                      DR DEEPAK DOSHI S/O MANIKCHAND,
                      AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
                      R/O: NO.#10/21, VIDYANAGAR
                      NORTH SADAR BAZAR
                      NEAR ZILLA NYALAYA, SOLAPUR - 413 003.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           THROUGH INDI POLICE STATION, INDI,
Digitally signed by        NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP,
SHIVALEELA                 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI                      KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 103.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             2.   SRI KASUGOUDA BIRADAR
                           S/O IRAPPAGOUD BIRADAR,
                           AGE: 60 YEARS,
                           OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORK,
                           R/O: SADASHIV NAGAR,
                           SINDAGI ROAD, INDI,
                           TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 209.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
                          SRI JIDAGE KAILASH C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                    -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619
                                         CRL.P No. 200363 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.100/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2),
49, 190 OF BNS 2023, REGISTERED BY INDI POLICE STATION
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, INDI, INDI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.100/2024 IN
C.C.NO.191/2025 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.4
(AS PER FIR) IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


                          ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.191/2025,

arising out of Crime No.100/2024, registered by Indi Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Sections

126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2) ands 49 r/w

Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity

"BNS"), pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Indi.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent

No.2/complainant lodged a complaint before respondent

No.1-Police alleging that there is an educational society at

Indi in the name and style of "Shanteswar Vidyavardhak

Sangha" and respondent No.2 is the member of the said

society. On 22.12.2024, a General Body meeting was

conveyed in the society at about 4.00 p.m. Respondent

No.2 along with other members went to attend the said

meeting. The petitioner, who was the President of the

Society was absent on that day and the meeting was

presided by the Vice President i.e., accused No.2.

3. The further case of respondent No.2 is, at the

time of inception of the meeting, accused No.2 questioned

respondent No.2 and five other members as to why they

are present at the meeting, since their membership of the

society had been cancelled. However, respondent No.2

questioned removal of his membership from the society,

since his family had donated 12 acres of land to the

society. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up a

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

quarrel and abused respondent No.2 and caught hold him

and tried to push him outside the meeting hall, accused

Nos.1 to 3 accompanied along with six others, abused and

man handled respondent No.2 and his relatives and also

threatened them with dire consequences. As such,

respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent

No.1-Police on 22.12.2024 which is registered in Crime

No.100/2024 for the aforementioned offences.

4. Subsequently, respondent No.1 - Police

investigated the case and laid charge sheet against nine

accused persons for the aforementioned offences by

arraigning this petitioner as accused No.4. Accordingly,

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.4

preferred this petition to quash the proceedings.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

6. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioner contended that, on perusal of

the complaint averments and charge sheet materials,

petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence at

the time of alleged incident. He further contended that the

membership of respondent No.2 was removed from the

society, since he had filed a suit against the society which

was against bye-laws of the society. As such, out of

vengeance, he has filed a false complaint against the

petitioner and others. He also contended that the

petitioner had resigned for the post of the President of the

society on the date of meeting and the same was

communicated to the Vice President and the meeting was

presided by the Vice President. As such, the petitioner

cannot be made vicariously liable for the act committed by

the other accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow the

petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that now

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

that charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and

others by arraigning him as accused No.4, the incident

was caused at the behest of the petitioner. According to

him, respondent No.2's family has donated 12 acres of

land to the society, despite, at the instigation of the

petitioner the other members of the society removed the

membership of respondent No.2 and to that effect a suit is

pending before the Civil Court. In such circumstance, the

matter has to be dealt with in a detailed trial and at this

stage proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, he

prays to dismiss the petition.

8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also

opposed the prayer and prays to dismiss the petition.

9. I have given my anxious consideration both on

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

respective parties and the documents made available on

record.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

10. On careful examination of the complaint

averments, admittedly the incident was caused in the

General Body meeting held on 22.12.2024. As per the

minutes of the meeting placed by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, the meeting was presided by the Vice

President, since the petitioner was absent on that day.

Further, he already intimated his resignation for the post

of President to the Vice President on the date of incident.

Though it is contended by learned counsel for respondent

No.2 that he was removed at the behest of this petitioner,

on perusal of the records, on the date of removal of

respondent No.2 also, the President was not in the

meeting.

11. Insofar as the allegation of instigation by this

petitioner is concerned, in the entire charge sheet

materials, no such specific statements are made by any of

the witnesses. The petitioner was implicated based on the

stray statement made by respondent No.2 in the

complaint. Admittedly, respondent No.2 was wreaking

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

vengeance against the petitioner, who was the

Ex-President of the society and respondent No.2's family

had donated 12 acres of land to the society, to that effect,

a civil case also been filed by respondent No.2. In such

circumstance, without any prima facie statement of the

witnesses or other materials, the petitioner cannot be held

responsible for the act committed by the other accused

vicariously, since the vicarious liability is alien to the

criminal law.

12. 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.

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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

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

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

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1619

HC-KAR

initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials

collected in the course of investigation.

13. Hence, on overall perusal of the materials on

record, I am of the considered view that, even if the entire

allegations in the charge sheet materials taken on its face

value, no such offences have been made out against the

petitioner/accused No.4 for the offences he had been

charge sheeted. In such circumstance, the continuation of

criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 is

nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.4 in C.C.No.191/2025, arising out of Crime No.100/2024, registered by Indi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2) ands 49 r/w Section 190 of