Vinod.G v. State of Karnataka

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. 11635 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

¶1VINOD.G S/O GOVINDRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT, 119, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU-560021.

¶2KAVITHA.G D/O GOVINDRAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT, 146/147, 34TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, NARASIMHASWAMY BADAVANE, LAGGERE, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560096. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANOJ KUMAR V,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA, SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -01.

¶2NATARAJ.R, S/O RAJAMANI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT, A303E, BYRESHWARA LAYOUT, CRYSTAL DEW APARTMENT,

HENNUR BANDE, BENGALURU-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 18/2026 NOW CC NO.23113/2026 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 118(1), 3(5), 351(2) OF BNS 2023 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 32 ACJM BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

¶2This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No.23113/2026 for the offences alleged under Sections 118(1), 3(5), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 arising from Crime No.18/2026.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. The petitioners had filed a suit for eviction against the

complainant and after issuance of the notice, the complainant vacated the premises. However, the complainant had grudge against the petitioners and because of this, the complainant filed a false complaint making false allegations.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that one more suit is filed by the respondent No.2 in O.S. No.6078/2009 and the same is decided against the petitioners and same is decreed in part and appeal in R.F.A. No.590/2026 is pending. Thus, would contend that the prosecution could not have been lodged against the petitioners.

¶5It is his further submission that the complaint filed by the petitioners alleging offences against the respondent No.2 and his family members is not accepted by the police. The police have not registered the case against them in collusion with second respondent and have filed a false charge sheet. It is his further submission that the wound certificate does not inspire confidence as the complainant has alleged that the accused has assaulted with an iron rod. However, the wound certificate does not indicate that the injury is caused by iron rod.

¶6Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the iron rod is recovered from the custody of the petitioners and wound certificate would indicate that the injury is caused on the complainant and the victim.

¶7The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶8Merely because there was a civil suit filed by the complainant's mother, that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The charge sheet is filed indicating the ingredients of the offences. The wound certificate reveals that the victim has suffered an injury. Whether the iron rod which is allegedly recovered from the petitioners was used in the commission of the offence or whether it was really recovered from the petitioners, are the matters which have to be considered at the time of trial.

¶9Under these circumstances, the petition cannot be allowed in a jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petition is dismissed.

¶10All contentions raised by the petitioners are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court.

¶11It is made clear that observations made in this order should not be considered as having expressed anything against the petitioners.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38