Sri Bevinalappa v. State Opf 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. 6628 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

¶1SRI BEVINALAPPA, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A. DINDAVARA VILLAGE, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA -577501.

¶2SRI RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. BEVINALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A. DINDAVARA VILLAGE, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577501 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARPITH R REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.N SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OPF KARNATAKA, REP. BY HIRIYUR RULAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶2SRI RAMACHANDRA, S/O. BHOOTHANNA,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A. DINDAVARA VILLAGE, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGHARISH G.S, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. HARSHITHA S, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR BEARING CR.NO.0283/2025 REGISTERED BY THE HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 AND 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND COMPLAINT DATED 26.07.2025 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.0949/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 AND 3(5) OF BNS 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶2This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.949/2025, pending before the JMFC, Hiriyur, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and that a civil dispute relating to the land is pending between the petitioners and their brother before the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that, in order to pressurize the petitioners to concede to the demands of the complainant, the present case is filed.

¶4It is also submitted that the injuries sustained are simple and, therefore, there is no need to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences.

¶5It is also the contention that the petitioners have also lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 and investigation has already been completed and a charge sheet has been filed. Thus, it is urged that the proceedings against the petitioners has to be quashed.

¶6Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the alleged incident was witnessed by the eyewitnesses and the medical certificate also reveals that the complainant sustained injuries. It is contended that merely because the injuries are simple, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. It is further submitted that merely because a civil dispute is pending between the parties, it does not mean that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are to be quashed and the matter requires trial as the petitioners have disputed questions of facts.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply would contend that the allegation in the complaint is that the accused assaulted the complainant on the head and no head injury is found in the wound certificate.

¶8The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶9After considering the materials on record, the Court has noticed that there are statements of eyewitnesses who have stated that the incident has taken place. The wound certificate also reveals an injury to the skull, which is stated to be simple injury.

¶10The contention that there is a civil dispute between the parties, or that the petitioners have filed a counter-complaint, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The matter requires trial. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶11It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined only to the merits of the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and shall not be construed as having expressed on

the merits of the defence to be raised by the petitioners. All contentions are kept open.

¶12Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7