Vinay H R v. State Ofkarantaka by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12831 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

VINAY H R S/O RAJU ALIAS CABLE RAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, HITTUVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPUR TALUK, MYSURU DIST -571124 …PETITIONER (BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR G M,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARANTAKA BY BANNUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶2SRI.CHANDRA S/O BHEEMU @ BHIMANNA, HITTUVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPUR TALUK, MYSURU DIST -571124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN CC.NO.10/2026 REGISTERED BY BANNUR P.S., PENDING

BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, AT TIRUMAKUDAL NARASIPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 189(2),115(2),191(2),191(3),118(1),351(2),190 OF BNS, 2023, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND BE QUASHED AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

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 petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

¶2Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.10/2026 pending before JMFC, Tirumakudal Narsipur for the offences punishable under Section 189(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 351(2) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS').

¶3The crime is registered before the Bannur police station. The police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused no.3 would submit that the accused no.3 was not present at the time of alleged incident and vague allegations are made against him. The charge sheet materials do not constitute any offence

against the petitioner no.3, as such, would contend that the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner no.3 has to be quashed. It is the further submission that petitioner no.3 is a student and is unconcerned with the offence.

¶5Learned HCGP would submit that there are allegations in the complaint. The charge sheet materials would indicate that the complainant has taken the treatment and the medical records are produced. It is also submitted that there are eye witnesses to the incident.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would contend that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and alleged incident has taken place on 28.07.2024 whereas the complaint is filed on 01.09.2024 and the delay is not properly explained.

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

¶8On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is noticed that there is an allegation of assault by petitioner/accused no.3 as well. It is indeed true that there is a

delay in lodging the complaint. However, an explanation is offered by the complainant and it is also noticed that on

28.07.2024 itself, complainant went to the hospital. The explanation offered is that he has lodged the complaint, but, the police did not take any action. Thereafter, he has undergone further treatment at Jayadeva hospital and the doctor has opined that there is an internal injury and he was advised to rest.

¶9It is stated by the complainant that because of the aforementioned reasons, there is a delay in lodging the complaint.

¶10The Court is of the view that whether the delay has been properly explained or not is a matter that needs to be ascertained after trial.

¶11Prima facie the contents of the charge sheet material would require a trial before appreciating the contentions raised. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in this order are only confined to the merit of the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

and not on the merits of the defence to be raised by the petitioner.

¶13All contentions are to be considered after considering the evidence on record.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61