Shri Anil Kalyanashetty v. State of Karnataka by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9800 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

SHRI ANIL KALYANASHETTY S/O REVANASIDDAAPPA KALYANASHETTY, (R.S. KALYANASHETTY) AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER, R/AT "AKSHAY", NO. 38, 8TH MAIN, VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK R KALYANASHETTY AND SRI. ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATES)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY (INDIRANAGAR PS), B'LORE-18, BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT PREMISES, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶2SMT/MISS VEDIKA BAGAI D/O. SUNIL BAGAI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, FORMERLY RUNNING SHOW SALOON, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 1079, 12TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR,

by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU-560 038. AS PER COMPLAINT, SINCE VACATED IN 2019, HER PRESENT ADDRESS IS NOT READILY KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 53587/2020 (INDIRANAGAR PS CR NO. 272/2018) ON THE FILE OF X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU INCLUDING THE CHARGE SHEET FILED, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2020 TAKING CONGNIZANCE AND ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354A, 427, 506, IPC AS AGAINST HIM AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2024 HOLDING SERVICE OF SUMMONS AS SERVED AND ISSUING BAILABLE WARRANT AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

¶1This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.53587/2020 arising out of Crime No.272/2018 registered by the 1st respondent - police against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 427, 506 of IPC.

¶2The factual matrix of the case is that, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before the 1st respondent police on

26.10.2018 alleging that she being the tenant under the petitioner's father, there was a dispute in respect of eviction of premises and the default of payment of rent and in such circumstances, on 01.10.2018, petitioner trespassed into her Saloon, outraged her modesty and damaged the property. On the strength of said complaint, FIR came to be registered and subsequently, after investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a suit was filed by respondent No.2 in O.S.No.9231/2018 seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner's family from interfering with her possession of the tenanted saloon relying on the aforesaid complaint and even petitioner's family filed a counter claim for eviction. The said suit of respondent No.2 was dismissed, however, the counter claim for

eviction was decreed. According to him, there is an inordinate delay of 25 days in filing the complaint. Moreover, in the complaint, except some omnibus allegations, no such specific averments made about the alleged offences against the petitioner. In such circumstances, he submitted that the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 out of wreaking vengeance since petitioner's father insisted her to vacate the premises. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶5The prayer in the petition is opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned HCGP contending that the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and the statement of material witnesses discloses the commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the proceedings cannot be quashed against him. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

¶7Admittedly, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.2 respectively is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that after filing of this complaint, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against petitioner's family from interfering with her possession of the tenanted saloon relying on the aforesaid complaint and even petitioner's family filed a counter claim. Since her suit was dismissed and the counter claim for eviction was decreed, respondent No.2 vacated the premises. Further, on perusal of the complaint averments, it is clear that the alleged incident took place on 01.10.2018, however, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 26.10.2018 i.e., after lapse of 25 days. Further, on scrutiny of complaint, it is seen that absolutely there is no allegation in respect of outraging modesty of respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Thus, ingredients of offence under Section 354A of IPC do not attract against the petitioner. Further, it is held in catena of judgments that mens rea has to be established and in order to attract the offence under Section 354A of IPC, some positive act has to be committed. In the instant case, no such allegations are

forthcoming in the complaint. In such circumstances, it could be gathered that since the petitioner's father insisted respondent No.2 to vacate the premises by clearing the arrears of rent, as a retaliation the complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2 out of wreaking vengeance.

¶8The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED ALI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UP - 2023 (15) SCC 488 in paragraph Nos.11 to 14 held as under: "11. The entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters are:- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order

of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).

¶12At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.

The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

¶13In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy,

(2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- "5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no

offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

¶6In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

¶7In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case

where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death….." (Emphasis supplied)

¶14In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated

04.06.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed."

¶9Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 out of wreaking vengeance and that the allegations made therein do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.53587/2020 arising out of Crime No.272/2018 registered by the 1st respondent - police against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 427, 506 of IPC are quashed.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16