Disposed¶44

Sri Chethan Kumar T P v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2025CRL.P/1977/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused at investigation stage; S.482 Cr.P.C. petition disposed of; counter-blast/cross-FIR (Crime No.7/2023) not a ground to presume later complaint false; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s); IPC Ss.323, 324, 341, 504, 506, 34; police prerogative to investigate cannot be interfered with; IO to investigate fairly without harassment; Karnataka High Court; Mohammad Nawaz J.; Crime No.8/2023 Dibburahalli P.S.; Chikkaballapura.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without quashing the FIR or interfering with the investigation; Investigation Officer to conduct a fair investigation, file an appropriate report, and not harass the petitioners; pending I.A.s disposed of. ¶44

Sri Chethan Kumar T P Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.8/2023 of Dibburahalli Police Station, arising out of respondent No.2's complaint, should be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complaint is a counter-blast to the earlier Crime No.7/2023 lodged by petitioner No.2 and constitutes an abuse of process of the Court. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Merely because an earlier case (Crime No.7/2023) was registered a couple of days prior is not, at this stage, a ground to assume that respondent No.2 lodged a false complaint against the petitioners; the case is still under investigation.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The prerogative of the police to conduct investigation into the allegations made in the complaint and to file an appropriate report cannot be interfered with.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petitioners may bring all transactions between the parties to the notice of the Investigation Officer; the Investigation Officer shall, after conducting a fair investigation, file an appropriate report and shall not harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz, J.) disposed of Crl.P. No.1977 of 2023 filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.8/2023 of Dibburahalli Police Station — offences under Ss.323, 324, 341, 504, 506 r/w S.34 IPC and Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 — lodged by respondent No.2 days after petitioner No.2's complaint had resulted in Crime No.7/2023 against respondent No.2. Held: the mere fact that an earlier cross-case was registered a couple of days prior is not, while the matter is still under investigation, a ground to treat the later complaint as false; the police's prerogative to investigate and file an appropriate report cannot be interfered with; the petitioners may place all transactions between the parties before the Investigating Officer, who must investigate fairly and refrain from harassing them. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15516 CRL.P No. 1977 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1977 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR T.P., (AS PER FIR WRONG NAME GIVEN AS CHETHANA GOWDA), S/O PUTTASINAPPA K R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.30/1, 2^ND CROSS, JAI JAWAN NAGAR, SUBBAIYANAPALYA, BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 033.

¶9

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. MANJUNATHA P S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KANNURU VILLAGE AND POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 562 149.

¶11

SRI. MARIYAPPA Y.N., S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT YARAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105.

¶12

SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:15516 CRL.P No. 1977 of 2023

¶15

KUNDALAGURKI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶20

BY DIBBURAHALLI POLICE STATION, DIBBURAHALLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105.

¶21

REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING,

¶22

BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶23

SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105. MOBILE NO.6361993981.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY MS.ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1; SRI.UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.0008/2023 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIBBURAHALLI P.S. AS PER ANNEXURE J AND K ON THE BASIS OF COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 341, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) 2015 AMENDED ACT AS PER ANNEXURE J AND K PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:15516 CRL.P No. 1977 of 2023

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of FIR against them in Crime No.8/2023 at Dibburahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶33

The first informant by name Santhosh Kumar has alleged that the land bearing Sy.No.53/2 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas of Thimmanayakanahalli Village belonged to his father Eshwarappa and since his father was unwell, they decided to sell the said property through a broker by name Mariyappa S/o Narayanappa. The said broker brought Munivenkatappa and introduced him to the complainant and later he introduced Chethan Gowda and Manjunath, to whom a GPA was executed.

¶34

However, some quarrel took place between the complainant and the parties to whom GPA was executed regarding construction of a compound wall and in this background on 21.01.2023 at about 7.00 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding on a two wheeler towards Dibburahalli, accusedChethan Gowda waylaid his two wheeler, abused him in filthy

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:15516 CRL.P No. 1977 of 2023

¶37

language referring to his caste and assaulted with iron rod on his head and left hand etc.

¶38

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the entire allegations are false and the complaint against them was lodged as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.2-Manjunatha.P. He contended that a case in Crime No.7/2023 was registered at Dibburahalli Police Station against respondent No.2 herein for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 114, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on 19.01.2023 and after three days, present complaint was lodged making false allegations. He further contended that on account of civil dispute, false case was registered against the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court.

¶39

It is not in dispute that a case in Crime No.7/2023 was registered against respondent No.2 and two others at Dibburahalli Police Station on 19.01.2023. The said case was registered on a complaint lodged by Manjunatha.P.-petitioner No.2 herein. Merely because a case was registered a couple of

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15516 CRL.P No. 1977 of 2023

¶41

days earlier itself, is not a ground to assume at this stage that respondent No.2 herein lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. The case is still under investigation. The prerogative of the police to conduct investigation into the allegations made in the complaint and to file an appropriate Report, cannot be interfered with.

¶42

Petitioners can bring to the notice of the Investigation Officer regarding all transaction between the parties. The Investigation Officer after conducting a fair investigation, shall file an appropriate Report. In the guise of investigation, he shall not harass the petitioners.

¶43

With the above observation, petition stands

¶44

disposed of . Consequently, pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶46

SMJ,

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Chethan Kumar T P v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chethan Kumar T P v. 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

Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey Vs State of Karnataka

Mallappa @ B Mallappa Vs State by

Rohith Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran @ Mohammed Imran Vs the State

K.M. Mahadevaswamy Vs State by Srirampura P.S

Bommanahalli Babu @ P S Ayub Vs State by Kyathasandra P S