Smt. Suchitra Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10034 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUCHITRA W/O S. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.2, 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD NEAR HOTEL WOODLANDS SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560027.

¶9

GAYATHRI VISHWANATH D/O S. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.2, 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

NEAR HOTEL WOODLANDS SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560027.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA S R NAGAR POLICE STATION

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶20

SNEHA I. PATHI D/O LAKSHMI PATHI. R AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.2, 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HARISH .H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 9676/2025, FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND COMPLAINT IN CC.NO.9679/2025 REGISTERED BY SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR P.S., PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 74, 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE B, C AND D.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.9679/2025 for the offence punishable under sections 74, 115(2), 118(1), 353, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶31

A complaint has been lodged by respondent

¶32

No.2/de facto complainant, who is also the alleged victim, stating that on 18.08.2024, the present petitioners, along with accused No.1, assaulted her. The allegations are that accused No.1 manhandled the de facto complainant, pushed her to the floor, and outraged her modesty by touching her private parts. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1/accused No.2 abused and physically pulled the complainant, while petitioner No.2/accused No.3 allegedly used vulgar language and went to the extent of tearing the clothes of the complainant’s mother. Based on

¶33

these allegations, a crime was registered, investigated, and thereafter, a charge-sheet has been laid against all

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the accused. Consequently, the petitioners, along with accused No.1, are now facing prosecution for the offences enumerated in the charge-sheet.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 – State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

¶38

The present petitions are part of a batch that has been listed before this Court today. On careful examination of the records in the connected matters, it is noticed that both the petitioners’ family and respondent No.2 have lodged several complaints and countercomplaints against each other, resulting in registration of multiple FIRs. The material on record further indicates that the parties are already contesting their disputes before the civil court in O.S.No.1182/2017, which is still pending adjudication. Against this backdrop, though there are

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

indeed serious allegations attributed to accused No.1, the specific role attributed to petitioner No.1/accused No.2 appears to be general in nature and lacking in specificity. The allegations levelled against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 are even weaker and appear omnibus and vague. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also placed reliance on a video recording, which finds mention in the written complaint lodged at the time of registration of the FIR. However, even such material, on prima facie consideration, does not inspire confidence insofar as the allegations against accused No.3 are concerned.

¶43

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that

¶44

petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is a young student, who has applied for and secured admission to Dublin City University, Ireland, for pursuing a Master’s degree in Finance. In anticipation of her admission, she has applied for an educational loan, which has been duly sanctioned by Avanse Financial Services Limited to the tune of Rs.33,00,000/-. The academic and financial arrangements

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

are already in place, and any prolonged exposure to the rigours of a criminal trial is likely to severely prejudice her prospects and derail her educational career.

¶49

Having considered the overall circumstances,

¶50

this Court finds that while the adult members of the family, who are already litigating before the civil court, appear to have embroiled themselves in a series of acrimonious disputes leading to allegations of verbal altercations and even physical assault, the involvement of petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is not supported by specific and credible material. The only allegation against her is

¶51

that she used vulgar language and pulled the hair of the complainant’s mother, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is too general and omnibus in nature. She is the daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2 and appears to have been dragged into this family dispute without sufficient justification.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In these peculiar facts and circumstances, this

¶55

Court is of the view that compelling petitioner No.2/accused No.3 to undergo the ordeal of a full-fledged trial would amount to an abuse of process of law and would jeopardize her educational and professional career.

¶56

The interests of justice warrant intervention at this stage. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings insofar as they relate to petitioner No.2/accused No.3, while leaving it open for the prosecution to proceed against accused Nos.1 and 2, who shall face trial on the basis of the allegations made against them.

¶57

For the reasons stated supra, this Court passed the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The criminal petition is allowed insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is concerned;

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35789 CRL.P No. 10034 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.9676/2025 pending on the file of XLVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶63

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶64

HDK

¶65

List No.: 1

Smt. Suchitra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suchitra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sindhu Bellavi T N., Vs Mr. Niranjan G E.

Sri. Gopalakrishna K Vs M/S Preethi Travels Pvt. Ltd.

Madhu Vs the Karnataka State

Mr Niyaz Ahamad Patel, Vs Sri. Pavan M P

Sampath Raju Vs Raghu Rao

Mr Dhiraj Kumar Singh Vs State of Karnataka