[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Saubagya vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621
                                                        CRL.P No. 202136 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. 202136 OF 2025
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SMT. SAUBAGYA
                           W/O LATE. MALLIKARJUN SALMANI,
                           AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                           OCC: HOUSEWIFE
                           R/O: WATCH CHOUK,
                           BHAHAMANA ONI,
                           LINGASUGURU - 584 122.

                      2.   SRI. MAHANATAPPA
                           S/O DASHVANTAPPA,
                           AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
Digitally signed by        R/AT: PALAKANAMARDI,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA                 TQ: DEVADURGA,
UDAGI
                           DIST: RAICHUR - 584 115.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                          ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA

                      (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           THROUGH LINGASUGUR,
                           POLICE STATION,
                           BY STATE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                           HIGH COURT, KALABURAGI
                           DIST AND TALUK - 585 103.
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621
                                  CRL.P No. 202136 of 2025


HC-KAR




2.   HANUMANTRAYA
     S/O. ERANNA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     KOTTADODDI VILLAGE, DEVADURGA TALUK,
     RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 127.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MOHAMMED SHARIF AND
SRI SYED MOJIB HUSSEN, ADVOCATES FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS IN AGGRIEVED BY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL. C.5114/2024 AND CRIME NO.145/2022 U/SEC. 143, 147,
323, 355, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s)
SECTION 3(2) (va) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT 2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 PASSED BY THE I-
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR IN SPL.
C.5114/2024 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS/
PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 in

Spl.C.No.5114/2024, arising out of Crime No.145/2022,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

registered by Lingasugur Police Station, for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506

r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for brevity,

'the IPC'] and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 [for brevity, 'the SC & ST (POA)

Amendment Act'].

2. The abridged facts of the case are,

complainant/respondent No.2-Hanumantaraya belongs to

Nayak caste and is the resident of Kottadoddi village. The

petitioners and other accused belong to Lingayath

community and they are the resident of Lingasugur. One

Amareshappa i.e., father of accused No.3 and 4 received

hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.2 in the

year 2016-17. Subsequently, said Amareshappa died in

the year 2020. As such, respondent No.2 approached

accused Nos.3 and 4, who are the children of late

Amareshappa for repayment of the loan amount. Though

they agreed to pay the same, they kept on postponing the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

repayment. Finally on 19.07.2022, respondent No.2

approached accused Nos.3 and 4 at their house and

requested for repayment of the hand loan obtained by

their father. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 abused

respondent No.2 in filthy language by mentioning his caste

and assaulted him and foisted life threat to him. Petitioner

No.2 along with accused No.5 were present at the scene of

occurrence and allegedly instigated accused Nos.1 to 4 for

their act. As such, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint

before respondent No.1-Police against six accused

persons.

3. On the strength of said complaint, respondent

No.1-Police registered the case in Crime No.145/2022

dated 20.07.2022 for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 355, 109, 506 read with

Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC

& ST (POA) Amendment Act, by arraigning the petitioners

as accused Nos.1 and 6. Subsequently, respondent No.1-

Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

all six accused persons and the learned Special Judge took

cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 preferred this petition to

quash the proceedings.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

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

5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioners contended that the dispute

involved in this case is purely civil in nature in respect of

the hand loan obtained by the father of accused Nos.3 and

4. According to respondent No.2, the said Amareshappa

died in the year 2020. Thereafter, for illegal gain,

respondent No.2 used to harass accused Nos.3 and 4 for

repayment of the amount. According to him, no such

incident said to have caused as stated by respondent

No.2. He also contended that petitioner No.2 i.e., accused

No.6 is the resident of Devadruga and he was not at all

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

present at the scene of occurrence on the date of incident

and he was falsely implicated in this crime, as he is the

father of accused No.1, who is the wife of accused No.3.

In such circumstance, he prays to allow the petition.

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

vehemently opposed the prayer. He contended that, now

that charge sheet has been laid against these petitioners

by arraigning them as accused Nos.1 and 6. The complaint

and charge sheet materials disclose the presence of the

petitioners in the scene of occurrence and petitioner No.1

i.e., accused No.1 abused respondent No.2 by mentioning

his caste and also assaulted him. Petitioner No.2 i.e.,

accused No.6 instigated accused Nos.1 to 4 for their act.

In such circumstance, he prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also

opposed the prayer and prays to dismiss the petition.

8. I have given my anxious consideration both on

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

respective parties and the documents made available on

record.

9. As could be gathered from the complaint and

the charge sheet materials, the incident was said to have

been caused for the reason that the father of accused

Nos.3 and 4 allegedly obtained hand loan of

Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.2 in the year 2016-17.

Later, he died in the year 2020. As such, respondent No.2

was insisting accused Nos.3 and 4 for repayment of the

amount. Hence, on 19.07.2022, respondent No.2 visited

the house of accused Nos.3 and 4 and demanded the

amount, at that time, the alleged incident was caused.

10. On perusal of the complaint averments it is

stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 abused respondent No.2 by

mentioning his caste and allegedly assaulted him.

However, in respect of petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 it

is stated that, he was present in the scene of occurrence

and allegedly instigated them. As such, the provisions of

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act do not attract against

petitioner No.2. The charge sheet materials further

disclosed that petitioner No.2 is aged about 75 years and

residing at Devadurga. On perusal of the complaint

averments it could be gathered that the complaint was

filed against this petitioner by wreaking vengeance against

petitioner No.2, since he is the father of accused No.1 who

is the wife of accused No.3. Even otherwise, if the entire

allegation in the complaint and charge sheet is taken on its

face value, then also there is no offence made out against

petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6. However, as discussed

supra, there are prima facie materials placed against

petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1.

11. 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.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

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

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

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

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.

12. In such circumstance, I am of the considered

view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against

petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 is clear abuse of process

of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed in part.

ii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1 is dismissed.

iii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.6 is allowed.

iv. The proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.6 in Spl.C.No. 5114/2024, arising out of Crime No.145/2022, registered by Lingasugur Police Station, for the offences

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1621

HC-KAR

punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, pending before the Trial Court, is hereby quashed.