Sri Mallikarjuna v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14158 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

¶1SRI MALLIKARJUNA S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶2SMT. GEETHA W/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶3SRI CHIDAMBARA M M S/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571124. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARISH KUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY T. NARASIPURA POLICE STATION, NANJANAGUDU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SMT. SUDHA

W/O CHANDRASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571124. …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 a) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.14/2024, INCLUDING THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0304/2023 DATED

28.10.2023, THE CHARGE SHEET, AND THE ORDER FRAMING CHARGES DATED 02.05.2025, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 354(B), 323 AND 504 R/W SEC.34 OF THE IPC, 1860, PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA.

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

¶2This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14/2024 arising out of Crime No.304/2023 registered by T.Narasipura Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354B, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of JMFC, T.Narasipura.

¶3The complaint is lodged by respondent No.2. The contents of the complaint dated 28.10.2023 would reveal that the alleged incident has taken place on 26.10.2023 at about 07:30 a.m. The complainant has alleged that there is a dispute between the neighbours relating to the land and the house and because of this they intentionally picked-up a quarrel with the complainant.

¶4It is alleged that the accused three in number came to the complainant's place, abused the complainant in foul language. One of the accused caught hold of the complainant and held her with an intention to outrage her modesty and pulled and tore her dress. It is alleged that another accused namely Mallikarjuna physically assaulted the complainant and another accused namely Geetha pulled the complainant's hand. It is also alleged that, residents of the same village came to rescue of the complainant and stopped the quarrel.

¶5It is also stated in the complainant that she has taken treatment from 27.10.2023, however, as per the advise of the elders of the village the complaint is not immediately lodged hoping for peaceful resolution and when the dispute is not settled, complaint is lodged on 28.10.2023.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner would urged that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and delay is not properly explained.

¶7It is the further submission that the contents of the complaint do not tally with the statement recorded before the Magistrate on 03.10.2023. Referring to the contradictions in the statement, it is submitted that the Police could not have filed the charge sheet.

¶8In addition, it is also submitted that the civil dispute is pending between the parties and this complaint is a counter blast to the civil dispute pending.

¶9In addition, it is also urged that the wound certificate produced does not reflect the MLC endorsement.

¶10Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that after investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet and the contentions raised by the petitioners are based on the disputed questions of facts and the matter requires trial.

¶11The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶12Merely because there is a civil dispute pending between the parties that itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceeding.

¶13The contents of the complaint prima facie indicate that there was assault on the complainant and wound certificate prima facie indicates that the complainant has suffered simple injuries. However, it requires to be adjudicated at the time of trial as to whether the wound certificate is worthy of acceptance for want for MLC endorsement and whether the alleged incident has really taken place. At this juncture, the proceeding cannot be quashed based on the disputed question of facts.

¶14Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶15All contentions are kept open to be adjudicated at the time of trial.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42