Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 354(D) and 509 IPC arising from a colleague's complaint of misusing her photographs and inappropriate behaviour. Finding prima facie materials including a charge sheet supporting the allegations, the High Court answered the point in the negative and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2018
Between:
Mr. Dayananda Sagar B.L., S/o B.M.Lakshman, Aged about 38 years, Residing at 25/A, 16th Main, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru-560 026. Former Head of the Department Automobile Department as on the day of termination P.E.S.P.T., 50 Feet Road, Hanumanthanagar B.S.K., 1st Stage, Bengaluru-560 050.
…Petitioner
Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(By Sri Subash Reddy V., Advocate)
And:
NC: 2024:KHC:44065 CRL.P No. 4672 of 2018
B.S.K. 1st Stage, Bengaluru-560 050.
…Respondents
(By Sri Rajat Subramanayam, HCGP for R1; R2 served and unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.6601/2018, on the file of the Hon'ble 24th A.C.M.M., at Bengaluru, in respect of the FIR, complaint and charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner in Crime No.338/2017, for the offence p/u/s 354(D) and 509 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition, coming on for hearing, this day, order was made therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being the accused in C.C.6601/2018 on the file of the learned XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. 338/2017 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D) and 509 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
Respondent No.2 lodged the first information with respondent No.1 police alleging that the petitioner who is working in Automobile Department of PES Polytechnic College is misusing the photographs of the victim and he is also behaving inappropriately and talking nonsense in abusive language and therefore has committed the offences as stated above.
the Principal of the College which was referred to Internal Complaint Committee. On the basis of the order passed by the Committee, the petitioner was removed from service. The said order is challenged by the petitioner. During pendency of the enquiry, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the police exaggerating her own version.
There are absolutely no basis in the allegations made by respondent No.2 and therefore he prays for allowing the petition.
“Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
against the petitioner regarding commission of offence punishable under sections 354(D) and 509 of IPC. It is stated that the petitioner got the photographs of the victim and misused the same. He was also behaving inappropriately, viz., following and touching her and making obscene comments. On the basis of this information, the FIR was registered and the investigation was undertaken. The investigation officer filed the charge sheet against the accused placing several materials on record. It is stated that the Trial Court has already framed charge against the petitioner. On perusal of the materials on record, I find that there are sufficient materials to constitute the offence as stated above. Initially respondent No.2 filed the complaint with the Principal of the College which was referred to the Internal Complaint
Committee. The Committee found substance in the complaint and petitioner was removed from service. Of course the said order of the Committee is said to be under challenge. In the meantime, respondent No.2 filed the complaint before the police and the charge sheet prima facie substantiates the allegations made against the petitioner. Since there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence in question, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present petition.
Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner made out grounds to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 354(D) and 509 IPC in C.C.No.6601/2018.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dayananda Sagar B.L.
The State of Karnataka
Priyanka C.
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
