Caroline Kasper Vs State of Karnataka

CAROLINE KASPER D/O KASPER BENJAMIN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, SRINIVASA LANE, 1^st CROSS, NEAR INDIRA CANTEEN, DOORAVANI NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ROHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ADARSHA. R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR PS, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SRINIVAS S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 66, 5^th MAIN, PILLAREDDY NAGAR, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043. MOBILE NO. 9916641994.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32352 CRL.P No. 11936 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.56662/2025 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE XI ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/RAMAMURTHY NAGARA PS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner – accused No.2 is seeking quashing of

¶24

the proceedings in C.C.No.56662/2025 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶25

2. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the complaint and the subsequent charge sheet, is that on 06.09.2023 at about 7.30 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding on her motorbike near Chaitanya Techno School , the petitioner/accused No.2 attempted to overtake the complainant’s vehicle. In the course of such overtaking, the petitioner’s vehicle collided with the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32352 CRL.P No. 11936 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

vehicle of respondent No.2/complainant. It is stated that immediately, after the said incident, a verbal altercation ensued between the petitioner and the complainant. During this scuffle, the petitioner is alleged to have contacted accused No.1 over phone and called him to the spot. Pursuant to this call, accused No.1 is said to have reached the scene and, in the heat of the altercation, assaulted the complainant with a knife, thereby causing injuries. Based on this incident, the present crime came to be registered for the offences alleged.

¶29

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ accused No.2, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would strenuously contend that the allegations in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any overt act on the part of the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the entire incident is attributed to accused No.1, who is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the complainant and that the petitioner is unnecessarily dragged into the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:32352 CRL.P No. 11936 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

proceedings without there being any specific or

¶34

substantive allegation against him. On this premise, it is contended that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.

¶35

4. Per-contra , learned High Court Government Pleader, placing reliance on the complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation, would submit that the scuffle was initially between the complainant and the present petitioner-accused No.2. It is specifically alleged that it was at the instance and call of accused No.2 that accused No.1 came to the spot and thereafter, assaulted

¶36

the complainant with a knife. The learned HCGP would therefore argue that the role of accused No.2 in instigating and summoning accused No.1 to the scene of occurrence cannot be ignored and that the investigation has unearthed sufficient material to lay the charge sheet against both accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, it is

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32352 CRL.P No. 11936 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

submitted that no grounds are made out for quashing the

¶40

proceedings at this stage.

¶41

5. Having carefully considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the complaint as well as the charge sheet papers, this Court finds that there are specific allegations against both accused Nos.1 and 2. The materials disclose that the altercation commenced between accused No.2 and the complainant, and during the course of the said incident, accused No.2 contacted accused No.1 over mobile phone and called him to the spot. The prosecution version further reveals that, acting upon such call, accused No.1 arrived and assaulted the complainant with a knife, thereby causing injuries. These allegations, prima facie, bring out the involvement of accused No.2 not only in the initiation of the scuffle but also in instigating the subsequent assault.

¶42

6. In view of these categorical averments and

¶43

supporting material in the charge sheet, this Court is of

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:32352 CRL.P No. 11936 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the opinion that there exist sufficient grounds to proceed against both accused Nos.1 and 2. The contention of the petitioner that there are no specific overt acts attributed to her cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the material discloses her active role in summoning accused No.1 and thereby facilitating the assault on the complainant. Since the Investigating Officer, upon due investigation, has filed the charge sheet implicating both the accused, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. At this stage, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter to be tested during trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought and is required to face trial in accordance with law.

¶48

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶50

NBM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Caroline Kasper v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Caroline Kasper v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Aditya Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Happy Milk Vs M/S. Banger Tech Private Limited

Smt.Javeria Shariff Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Galaxy Fashion Showroom Vs Sri Umesh G B

Khalid Ur Rehman Alias Khalid Vs State of Karnataka

Siddu Vs the State of Karnataka