Mahadeva Alias Puttaswamy v. The State by K.R. Sagara Police Station

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9356 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

¶1MAHADEVA ALIAS PUTTASWAMY S/O TOPEGOWDA AGED 56 YEARS R/O BINDAHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTIRCT-571428.

¶2MADHU S/O MAHADEVU AGED 32 YEARS R/O BINDAHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTIRCT-571428.

¶3ABHISHEK D. ALIAS ABHI S/O DEVARAJU AGED 25 YEARS R/O BINDAHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTIRCT-571428.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE BY K.R. SAGARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.

¶2PRADEEPA H.N. S/O NEGEGOWDA AGED MAJOR HOSAYERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA -571428.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION OF BHARATHIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITHA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED

07.08.2025 FILED IN C.C.NO.13/2026 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S. 118(1), 352 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS ACT, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

¶1Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

¶2The petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings and charge sheet in C.C.No.13/2026 before the JMFC, Pandavapura,

Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite the attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint dated 07.08.2025 filed by respondent No.2.

¶4The Court has perused the said complaint.

¶5In the said complaint, it is alleged that on 06.08.2025, the complainant had gone to the agricultural land of Sheelamma and saw the water pipes scattered on the land. When the complainant was about to arrange those water pipes, the children of Mahadev namely, Madhu, Manu and Abhi, son of Devaraj came to the spot and asked the complainant as to why he was arranging the pipes and started abusing him.

¶6It is alleged in the complaint that Manu, Madhu and Abhi, held the complainant and dragged him to the road and took the pipe and put it around the neck of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant fell down and thereafter Mahadev hit him with a stone on his waist. It is also alleged

that the stone hit on his knee and Manu allegedly has assaulted the complainant with a club on his waist.

¶7It is further stated that a life threat has been given to the complainant. Two persons by name Raje Gowda and Narasimhe Gowda rescued the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that he was taken in an ambulance to a hospital in Pandavapura and was given treatment. Later, he was taken to Pralaksha Hospital, Mysuru for further treatment.

¶8Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the contents of the complaint and also the charge sheet would submit that though there is an allegation of assault by Manu, he has been dropped in the charge sheet. The wound certificate does not tally with the assault alleged in the complaint. Thus would urge that there are discrepancies and for this reason, the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings has to be quashed.

¶9Learned Additional SPP would oppose the petition on the ground that the complaint would disclose cognizable offences and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

According to the prosecution, there are three eye witnesses who have witnessed the incident. The contentions raised in the petition are based on disputed facts and they have to be tried. Merely because one person is not named in the charge sheet, it does not mean that the proceedings has to be quashed. The person by name Manu is not named in the charge sheet, as the eye witnesses have not spoken about his presence.

¶10The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶11From the complaint, it is apparent that a person by name Manu is named in the complaint as the person who has assaulted the complainant along with others. However, the eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, as such, Manu is not named in the charge sheet. That by itself would not mean that the alleged incident has not taken place.

¶12It is relevant to note that, in the complaint, there is an allegation that the persons named in the charge sheet abused and assaulted the complainant. There may be a slight variation in the statement made in the complaint and the wound

certificate. That by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. The matter requires trial.

¶13Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶14The observations made in this order are confined only to the merits of the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and not on the merits of the proceeding before the Trial court.

¶15All contentions are kept open.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10