Allowed¶69

Sunil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025CRL.P/200163/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; non-cognizable offence; Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.; Section 200 Cr.P.C.; Magistrate's permission for FIR; private complaint; counter blast; mala fide complaint; abuse of process of law; delay in lodging FIR; BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 351(2), 352; IPC Sections 504, 506, 34; State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) paragraph 102 categories; Kalaburagi; University Police Station; III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed; the entire proceedings in Crime No.17/2025 registered by University Police Station, Kalaburagi City, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending before the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, stand quashed. ¶69

Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.17/2025 (University Police Station, Kalaburagi) for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of BNS 2023, pending before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is an abuse of process liable to be quashed, having been registered without following the procedure for non-cognizable offences under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶64

Court's answer

For non-cognizable offences, permission of the Magistrate must be obtained by the complainant by filing a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (procedure contemplated by Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.); since that procedure was not followed in this case, the FIR has to be quashed.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The complaint against the petitioner was registered as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the complainant and her family members in PCR No.746/2024 on 12.11.2024; the FIR proceeding is thus mala fide.

¶47

Key takeaways

Applying the ratio of State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, paragraph 102 categories), the court held that the ratio is squarely applicable to the case on hand and that it is a fit case to quash the FIR; the FIR also cannot survive because the prescribed procedure was not followed by the respondent-police.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench (S Rachaiah, J.), CRL.P No.200163 of 2025, decided 04.03.2025 - FIR in Crime No.17/2025 of University Police Station, Kalaburagi, under Sections 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of BNS 2023 (corresponding old-code offences: Sections 504, 506 read with 34 IPC) quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Grounds: (i) the alleged offences are non-cognizable; the police had endorsed that an FIR could not be registered without the jurisdictional Magistrate's permission, yet the FIR was registered on 20.01.2025 without following the Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. procedure (permission via private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.); (ii) the complaint, lodged with delay after the 08.01.2025 incident, was held to be a counter blast to the petitioner's own complaint in PCR No.746/2024 dated 12.11.2024, i.e., maliciously instituted. The principles in State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) were held squarely applicable. Petition allowed; entire proceedings before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200163 OF 2025

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SUNIL S/O GANGARAM NAYAK, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT OF P.HD, R/O. JEEROLI TANDA VILLAGE, TQ.ALAND, DIST.KALABURAGI, NOW PRESENTLY R/AT, NRUPTUNGA RESEARCH HOSTEL, KALABURAGI UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI-585102.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, Location: HIGH SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, COURT OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ADDL.SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585103.

¶16

SUSHMA D/O SUBHASH RATHOD, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KALABURAGI, R/O. H. NO. PLOT 140. JAWAR, HOUSING BOARD SOCIETY, SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUR KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST.KALABURAGI-585102

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND QUASH THE CRIME NO. 17 OF 2025 OF UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 3(5), 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023, AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI AS SAME IS NOTHING BUT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash

¶25

the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The corresponding offences under the old act are under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

It is the case of the complainant that she was

¶27

working as an Engineer at Irrigation Department, Kalaburagi. She stated to have lodged a complaint against her maternal uncle stating that he was forcing her for marriage. It is further stated that on 21.01.2025, the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶29

elders have fixed her engagement ceremony to be performed with another person. However, the accused after coming to know about the engagement, approached the family members of the bridegroom and threatened the family members and restrained them from in performing the engagement ceremony.

¶30

On 08.01.2025 around about 3.30 p.m., when

¶31

the complainant and her brother had been to State Bank of India and when they were returning from the said Bank, she saw that the petitioner was sitting on the dais along with his friends, which was situated opposite to the said bank, the complainant went and asked him as to why he was spoiling her life. At that time, he said to have replied in a boastful manner and also threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, she lodged a complaint requesting to take suitable action against the

¶32

accused/petitioner.

¶33

The jurisdictional police after receiving the complaint issued an endorsement stating that it is non-

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶35

cognizable offence and hence, FIR cannot be registered against said offence. Further, it is suggested to obtain permission from the Jurisdictional Magistrate to register FIR.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel Sri Ravi Bheemsingh

¶37

Chawan for the petitioner, Sri G.B.Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri Avinash A. Uploankar for respondent No.2.

¶38

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that though the alleged incident had taken place on 08.01.2025, complaint came to be registered on 20.01.2025. Moreover, the said complaint came to be registered as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the complainant and her family members.

¶39

7. It is further submitted that the averments made

¶40

in the said complaint would not disclose the ingredients of

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶42

the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the procedure to register the FIR in respect of non-cognizable offences has not been followed, therefore, the FIR has to be quashed. Making such submission, he prays to quash the FIR and its consequential proceedings.

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the registration of FIR and he submitted that on 19.01.2025, a complaint was lodged before the respondent – police and on the following day, after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner/accused. As such, the required procedure has been followed and therefore, there is no infirmity in registering the FIR. Thus, he prays to reject the petition.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for respective

¶45

parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, no doubt, the complainant has lodged a complaint making certain allegations against the petitioner. However, it is stated that the incident had occurred on 08.01.2025 and

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶47

the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner on 20.01.2025. Though, the delay has been explained in the said FIR stating that the complaint has been lodged after discussing the matter with the family members about the incident, the fact remains that, the said complaint came to be registered as a counter blast as against the complaint, which was filed by the petitioner herein against the complainant and her family members in PCR No.746/2024 on 12.11.2024.

¶48

In this context, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others¹ , wherein at paragraph No.102, it is held as follows:

¶49

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

¶50

1 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶53

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶54

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶55

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶57

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶58

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer 1992 Supp. (1) 335 without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶59

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶60

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶62

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶63

On reading of the above said judgment, the ratio laid down in the said case squarely applicable to the case on hand and it is a fit case to quash the FIR. It is also needless to state that the FIR filed against the petitioner cannot be survived even on the ground that the procedure as prescribed has not been followed by the respondent – police for the alleged offences.

¶64

Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates the procedure prescribed to register the FIR in case of noncognizable offences. Permission from the Magistrate has to be obtained by the complainant by filing private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In this case, no such procedure has been followed. Therefore, the FIR has to be quashed.

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1418 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2025

¶66

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶69

(ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.17/2025 registered by University Police Station, Kalaburagi City, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending before the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi stands quashed.

¶70

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶71

SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK

Sunil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf Vs the State of Karnataka

A R Srinivasa Vs State by Pete Police Station

M Manjunath Vs R Kumar

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ajeej Vs the State of Karnataka

Indrajit Das Gupt and Ors. Vs the State and Anr.