Dismissed¶42

Mr K Dhananjaya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025CRL.P/3061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 3061 of 2022; decided 27.10.2025 by Justice M.I. Arun; S.482 Cr.P.C. quash petition dismissed; acceptance of police 'B' report upheld; protest petition; Crime No.367/2011 (Indiranagar Police Station); Crl.R.P.No.25062/2017; 10th Addl. CMM Bangalore order dated 06.04.2017; XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall order dated 19.08.2019; BMTC bus route 380/1 scuffle 23.09.2011; petitioner earlier acquitted on police report against him; S.190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.; Sections 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC; Chapter XV Cr.P.C.; Crl.P.No.9904/2021 and Crl.P.No.201842/2023 distinguished on facts; no error in trial Court or Revision Court orders.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's allegations are not supported by any independent eye witness and the investigation reveals that his complaint is not true.

Mr K Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's acceptance of the 'B' report and the Revision Court's dismissal of the revision were without due process / erroneous such that the orders should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The petitioner's allegations are not supported by any independent eye witness and the investigation reveals that his complaint is not true.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

In this Court's opinion, the 'B' report filed by the police is satisfactory.

¶36

Key takeaways

As an additional opportunity, the trial Court recorded the petitioner's sworn statement upon his objections to the 'B' report, though it was not really required to do so.obiter¶36
The decisions in Crl.P.No.9904/2021 and Crl.P.No.201842/2023 relied on by the petitioner turn on different facts, do not come to his rescue, and he failed to show how they help him.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C.) dismissed. K. Dhananjaya sought quashing of the order dated 19.08.2019 of the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in Crl.R.P.No.25062/2017, which confirmed the order dated 06.04.2017 of the 10th Addl. CMM, Bangalore in Crime No.367/2011 accepting the police 'B' report on his complaint arising from a scuffle in a BMTC bus (route no.380/1) on 23.09.2011, and sought directions to take cognizance on his protest petition under S.190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC. Held: the petitioner's allegations were unsupported by any independent eye witness, all witnesses spoke against him, and investigation showed his complaint untrue; the trial Court had in fact recorded his sworn statement as an additional opportunity though not required; the 'B' report was satisfactory; the decisions in Crl.P.No.9904/2021 and Crl.P.No.201842/2023 were distinguishable on facts and afforded no assistance; and no error was found in the trial Court or Revision Court orders. Petition dismissed. (Coram: M.I. Arun, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42517 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3061 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. K.DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE K.KRISHNAPPA PRESENTLY R/AT NO.48 8^TH CROSS, 12^TH MAIN RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE IN

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42517 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CRL.R.P.NO.25062/2017 AND THEREBY CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 10^TH ADDL CMM, BANGALORE IN CRIME NO.367/2011 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶24

"a) Quash the impugned order dated 19-082019 passed by the court of XXVI addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in Crl.R.P.No.25062/2017 and thereby confirmed the impugned order dated 06-04-2017 passed by the court of 10^th Addl. CMM, Bangalore in Crime No.367/2011, and

¶25

b) Direct the court of 10^th ACMM, Bangalore to pass an order on B report filed by the police in Crime No.367/2011 on the basis of the protest petition filed by the petitioner and thereafter to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 I.P.C. and proceed further in the matter as contemplated under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and grant such other and further reliefs as this

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:42517 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

There was a scuffle in a BMTC bus bearing route no.380/1 on 23.09.2011 at about 11.15 a.m., which resulted in a complaint and counter complaint being filed by the petitioner as well as some other persons against the petitioner. It is submitted that after investigation, police report was filed against the petitioner, in which he has been acquitted. In respect of the complaint filed by the petitioner, after investigation, 'B' report has been filed by the police. Thereafter the petitioner filed his objections to the said 'B' report. The learned trial Court recorded his sworn statement and heard the petitioner and thereafter accepted the 'B' report. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Crl.Rev.P.No.25062/2017 which also has been dismissed. Against the said acceptance of 'B' report and dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition, the present criminal petition has been filed.

¶31

It is alleged by the petitioner that it was in fact he who was assaulted illegally by the accused named by him in his complaint and that he is innocent. It is further submitted that

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:42517 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the police also assaulted him in the police station. It is also contented that the trial Court without following the due process has accepted the 'B' report.

¶36

The records produced disclose that the petitioner has deposed before the Magistrate when he was produced, that he has not been tortured by the police. There is not even a single person who has given a statement in favour of the petitioner herein. On the contrary, all witnesses have given their statements against the petitioner. The allegations of the petitioner is not supported by any independent eye witness. The investigation reveals that the complaint of the petitioner is not true. However, to give an additional opportunity the trial Court recorded his sworn statement when it was not really required to do so, upon the petitioner filing his objections to the 'B' report. In my opinion, the 'B' report filed by the police is satisfactory. The petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Crl.P.No.9904/2021 and Crl.P.No.201842/2023, the facts of which are different from the instant case and they do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to show how the said decisions come to his rescue.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:42517 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40