Dismissed¶¶58

Sri M.Varun Mallik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025CRL.P/1800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Sachin Shankar Magadum J, 07.08.2025), CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025: quashing plea under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS against FIR Crime No.8/2025 (Channammanakere Achu Kattu PS; BNS ss.115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 75) dismissed; assault/threat/blackmail allegations by woman advocate against her client; MLC corroboration; 20-day delay in complaint not a ground to quash at threshold; investigation to proceed unhindered with anti-harassment directions.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the principal prayer for quashing; the Court directed the petitioner/accused to extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer, and directed the Investigating Officer to ensure the petitioner is not subjected to unnecessary harassment and to secure his presence only as and when required for investigation. ¶¶58

Sri M.Varun Mallik Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising from FIR in Crime No.8/2025 (sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74 and 75 of BNS 2023) should be quashed, the petitioner contending that even taking the complaint averments at face value no prima facie case is made out and continuation would amount to abuse of process. +1 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

The allegations made by respondent No.2, a practicing lady advocate, that her client (the petitioner) misbehaved with and physically assaulted her cannot be brushed aside at the threshold.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

The delay of about 20 days in lodging the complaint cannot, by itself, be a ground to terminate the criminal proceedings; the question of delay, the reasons for it and its impact on credibility are matters requiring appreciation of evidence at trial.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

In proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the truthfulness of the allegations; it must see whether the complaint, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence — here, there are specific, serious and direct allegations of physical abuse against a woman coupled with medical record entries.ratio¶¶48
There is no ground to interfere at this stage; the investigation must proceed unhindered, and the petitioner will have ample opportunity before the trial court to raise all permissible contentions, including the aspect of delay.ratio¶¶50
Granting indulgence at the investigation stage in cases involving allegations of assault on members of the legal profession, particularly women advocates while discharging their professional duties, may send a wrong signal — stated in the course of declining to quash.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (filed u/S.528 BNSS) by an accused seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.8/2025, Channammanakere Achu Kattu Police Station (ss.115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 75 BNS 2023), lodged by his lady advocate-complainant alleging misbehaviour, threats, blackmail and assault on 20.12.2024 — Petition dismissed. Complaint corroborated prima facie by registration of MLC; 20-day delay in lodging the complaint held to be a matter for appreciation of evidence at trial, not by itself a ground to terminate proceedings; at the S.482 stage the Court tests only whether the complaint on its face discloses a cognizable offence; investigation to proceed unhindered, with directions that the petitioner cooperate and not be subjected to unnecessary harassment.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1800 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M. VARUN MALLIK S/O. MALLIKARJUNA.M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1213/1, AVALAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HONNAPPA S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SMT. A.S. BRINDA, W/O VIKRAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEERS, R/AT NO.17, 8TH A CROSS, ITTAMADU, BSK 3rd STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARAN KHIVESRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.8/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 75 OF BNS 2023 REGISTERED BY THE CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE 37tH ACMM NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of proceedings pending in Crime No.8/2025 registered by Channammanakere Achu Kattu police station for the offence punishable under sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74 and 75 of the BNS, 2023.

¶24

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

Respondent No.2, a practicing advocate, has lodged

¶26

a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who was her client in connection with the filing of a divorce petition against his wife, misbehaved with her during visits to her office. It

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

is alleged that despite repeated requests by respondent No.2 to desist from such conduct, the petitioner persisted and further threatened and blackmailed her, stating that he would convey false information to her husband regarding their alleged relationship. Respondent No.2 has further stated that on 20.12.2024, at about 12:30 p.m., when she visited the petitioner’s house, he behaved aggressively, pushed her, slapped her, and assaulted her on the head and elbow, thereby causing painful injuries which, though not externally visible, resulted in internal bleeding. It is further alleged that while she was descending the staircase to leave, the petitioner pushed her from behind, causing her to fall and sustain grievous injuries. Based on this incident, the complaint came to be lodged on 09.01.2025.

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the alleged incident took place on 20.12.2024, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 09.01.2025, after a delay of nearly 20

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

days, without any explanation in the complaint for such delay. It is further urged that the complaint is frivolous and motivated, intended solely to extract money from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since he refused to succumb to such demands, a false case has been instituted. It is further submitted that, even if the complaint averments are taken at face value, no prima facie case is made out, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

¶36

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant submits that there is sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner assaulted respondent No.2, who is a practicing advocate, and that a medico-legal case (MLC) was registered soon after the incident. It is contended that the matter raises triable issues, and therefore this is not a fit case for interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶40

petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Records have been perused.

¶41

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the allegations made by respondent No.2 cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. Respondent No.2, a practicing lady advocate, has specifically alleged that her client, the present petitioner not only misbehaved with her but also physically assaulted her, causing injuries. The complaint is supported by the registration of a medico-

¶42

legal case (MLC), which lends prima facie corroboration to her version. At this stage, the petitioner’s contention that the delay of about 20 days in lodging the complaint casts serious doubt on its veracity, cannot, by itself, be a ground to terminate the criminal proceedings. The question of delay in lodging the complaint, the reasons for such delay, and its impact on the credibility of the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

prosecution are matters that require appreciation of

¶47

evidence and are to be determined during trial.

¶48

In proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the truthfulness of the allegations; rather, it must see whether the complaint, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence. In the present case, there are specific, serious, and direct allegations of physical abuse against a woman, coupled with medical record entries. Granting indulgence at this stage, when the investigation is yet to be completed, would not only amount to stifling a legitimate investigation but may also send a wrong signal

¶49

in cases involving allegations of assault on members of the legal profession, particularly women advocates, while discharging their professional duties. Bearing in mind the gravity of the accusations and the necessity of allowing

¶50

the investigative machinery to collect evidence, this Court finds no ground to interfere at this stage. The investigation must proceed unhindered, and the petitioner will have

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:30884 CRL.P No. 1800 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ample opportunity to defend himself and raise all permissible contentions, including the aspect of delay, before the trial court.

¶55

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶56

following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The Criminal Petition stands dismissed.

¶59

ii. The petitioner/accused shall extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. In turn, the Investigating Officer shall ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to any unnecessary harassment and shall secure his presence only as and when required for the purposes of investigation.

¶60

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶61

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶62

HDK

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

Sri M.Varun Mallik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.Varun Mallik 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

Sri. K. Sathish Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri.Saurav Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Farida Banu Vs State of Karnataka

Zaki Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Abdul Nowaiser Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishan v Shriyan Vs State of Karnataka