Allowed¶36

Krishnegowda. O. R. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2025CRL.P/181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing; S.482 Cr.P.C; CRL.P No. 181 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:3197; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; IPC Sections 324, 504, 506; Hassan City Police Station; C.C.No.2707/2022; Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court Hassan; construction agreement dispute; wound certificate; simple injuries; FIR lacks essential elements of SS.504/506; criminal texture to wreak vengeance / abuse of process; respondent 2 ex parte; petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2707/2022 pending before the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hassan, quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner. ¶36

Krishnegowda. O. R. Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2707/2022 pending before the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hassan, quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2707/2022 (registered by Hassan City Police Station for offences under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC) pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hassan should be quashed as against the petitioner-accused.

¶16

Court's answer

The injuries sustained by C.W.1 are simple in nature.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The allegations made in the FIR, on the face of it, do not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the alleged offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶29

Key takeaways

The dispute between the petitioner and C.W.1 arises with regard to the termination of the construction agreement and was given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance and with a revengeful intent.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C by the accused in C.C.No.2707/2022 (Hassan City P.S.; offences under SS. 324, 504, 506 IPC) seeking quashing of proceedings arising from an alleged 14.3.2022 assault during a quarrel over non-furnishing of a building plan. Wound certificate recorded simple injuries (tenderness over the thumb; lacerated wound over the upper lip) and did not reflect the assailants' names; it was issued on 20.4.2022, after cancellation of the petitioner-C.W.1 construction agreement on 18.4.2022 upon payment of Rs.3,10,000/-. Held: the injuries being simple, and the FIR allegations on their face failing the essential elements of SS. 504 and 506 IPC, the dispute over termination of the construction agreement had been given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner. Second respondent, though served with notice, did not appear and was placed ex parte.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3197 CRL.P No. 181 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 181 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KRISHNEGOWDA O.R. S/O. LATE RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ODANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLI MYSORE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 210. PRESENT ADDRESS: VIGNESHWARA FINANCE ROAD, HEMAVATHI CIRCLE, KHB, HOUSING BOARD, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN-573210.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHETAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AMBRISH B.N. AND SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B KMAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.27 16:35:17 +0530

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

VINAY. K. V. S/O. VEERBHADRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, LIG-427, 28^TH ROAD, CHANNAPATNA HOUSING BOARD, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN-573 201.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3197 CRL.P No. 181 of 2024

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2707/2022 REGISTERED BY HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.324,504,506 OF IPC 1860.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 of IPC.

¶21

The prosecution alleges that on 14.3.2022, when C.W.1 and C.W.2 were talking, at that time, the accused picked up a quarrel with regard to non-furnishing of the building plan by abusing C.W.1 and assaulted him with a brick.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

¶23

The respondent No.2 though served with notice did not choose to appear in person or through his counsel. Therefore, is placed exparte.

¶24

The prosecution has produced the wound certificate along with the charge sheet. The perusal of the wound certificate indicated that, C.W.1 has sustained tenderness over the thumb and lacerated would over the upper lip. However, the name of the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:3197 CRL.P No. 181 of 2024

¶27

assailants is not reflected in the wound certificate. C.W.1 has entered into an agreement with the petitioner for construction of the building, wherein, C.W.1 has agreed to construct a building.

¶28

The agreement entered into between the petitioner and C.W.1 was cancelled on 18.4.2022 and under the cancelled agreement, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-. After cancellation of the agreement, the wound certificate has been issued on 20.4.2022. However, the wound certificate does not specify that the same was furnished to the Investigating Officer, and it is implied that the wound certificate was produced by C.W.1 to the Investigating Officer.

¶29

Therefore, the injuries sustained by C.W.1 are simple in nature and the allegations made in the FIR, on the face of it does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the alleged offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, the dispute between the petitioner and C.W.1 arises with regard to the termination of construction agreement, however, given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance and with a revengeful intent.

¶30