Sri. Srihari Varanasi Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. SRIHARI VARANASI S/O. LATE SRI. SUBRAMANHYA SASTRI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8173, ALDER BLOCK, SOBHA FOREST VIEW, 100 FEET VAJARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, BANGALORE-560 109.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR, THAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

SMT. KALPANA NAAGARAJ W/O MR. NAAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/AT NO.1122, OAK BLOCK, SOBHA FOREST VIEW, 100 FEET VAJARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, BANGALORE-560 109.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.H.V.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.79/2022 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 509 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-B PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE A.C.J.M, BENGALURU RURAL.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this

¶27

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.79/2022 for the

¶28

offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC.

¶29

In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused is bad both in law and on facts and liable to be

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

set aside. The allegations made are false, frivolous and concocted. Out of enmity and vengeance a false complaint is filed by the complainant. In fact complainant filed the same complaint on 26.02.2022 before the Basavanagudi Women Police Station. After conducting thorough enquiry, the said police have issued endorsement dated 29.03.2022 to the respondent No.2 that no offence is made out. If respondent No.2 is not satisfied with the endorsement, she ought to have challenged the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing private complaint. However, she has chosen to file the second complaint with the respondent No.1 police without disclosing the fact of earlier complaint and endorsement. As per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is impermissible.

¶34

Respondent No.2 is indulged in character assassination of the petitioner, which is apparent from the second complaint. Except the self serving statement of respondent No.2, there is no iota of evidence to proceed against the petitioner. The allegations made in the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

complaint are absurd and inherently improbable. There have been several difference of opinion between the petitioner as the joint secretary and principal office bearers, including respondent No.2 on the issue regarding utter violation of association Bye-laws and nontransparency in financial matters of SFVAOA. Respondent No.2 has terribly misinterpreted and misconstrued the email from the petitioner dated 20.02.2022 questioning the principal office bearers for violating the Bye-laws. It is apparent that respondent No.2 hand in glow with other office bearers, in the guise of false and baseless complaints and by adopting defaming tactics are wanting to get rid of the petitioner so that remaining could gain unlawful. The allegations made in the complaint does not prima facie make out and attract the offence punishable under section 509 IPC. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶42

petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶43

(i) Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.( Krishna Lal Chawla )¹

¶44

(ii) Siddharth Sharma and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.( Siddhartha Sharma )²

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State submit that petitioner and respondent No.2 are residents of Oak block of Sobha Forest view Apartments. For the year 2022–23, respondent No.2 was elected as Treasurer. From the inception, petitioner was not able to accept her getting elected and saying that she is not having experience and credibility and started opposing her. However, she was effectively carrying out the said responsibility. During the management committee meeting held on 19.02.2022, when the budget was presented, petitioner opposed stating

¶46

1 (2021) 5 SCC 435

¶47

2 Crl.P.No.183/2023 dated 10.01.2025

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

that before presentation, the said information was not shared with the rest of the members. Despite she telling that it is a first cut budget and that she has taken the help of Sri.Raghavendra Medishetty, who was the Ex-treasurer and that it is not final budget, petitioner called her a dummy/proxy in front of all the members of the Management Committee, indicating that complainant is incompetent and that women are incapable of handling such roles.

¶51

In this regard, accused sent an email to respondent No.2 seeking justification. Respondent No.2 sent reply stating that she would not tolerate harassment and would go for legal action. She also complained to the President and Secretary. They promised to discuss the same with the petitioner. However, petitioner sent legal notice to respondent No.2 seeking for an apology, instead of apologizing for his behaviour. This was going on for a while. In this background, petitioner has sent an email stating that he would not attend the meeting in person

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

unless facility is made for video and audio recording. In this background complaint is filed. It requires detailed investigation. It is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶55

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors ( Rajesh )³ .

¶56

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶57

The undisputed facts are that both petitioner and respondent No.2 are residence of Sobha Forestview Apartments. For the year 2022–23, while complainant is elected as Treasurer, accused is elected as Joint Treasurer. The allegations are that on 19.02.2022, while presentation of the budget, the petitioner raised objections that before submitting the budget, it was not brought to the notice of the members and made derogatory remarks. After the meeting, the petitioner has addressed an email dated

¶58

3 AIR 1999 SC 1216

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

20.02.2022, at 2.54 p.m raising several questions regarding non-following the Bye-laws, wherein he has referred the Ex-treasurer Raghavendra Medishetty is a proxy treasurer, trying to control the finance functioning of the committee and it is gross violation of the Bye-laws.

¶63

In response to this, at 10.04 p.m, the respondent No.2 has sent an email alleging that his comments would amount to defamation, etc, and that she would seek legal remedy. To this through email the petitioner has sent reply on 21.02.2022 at 5.37 p.m, denying that his discussions in the meeting would amount to harassment or comments and that on account of these accusations, he is deeply hurt and want to know when he made any such comments and what were the actual words used. Petitioner has also got issued a legal notice dated 22.02.2022 to respondent No.2 reiterating that he has not made any sexist or other comments affecting her morality and called upon her to tender an immediate apology.

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

It is pertinent to note that on 26.02.2022, the petitioner has filed a complaint with Basavanagudi Women's police station again, making the allegations which are forthcoming in the earlier communication. The concerned police after examining and questioning the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 in person and in the presence of each other, given an endorsement dated 29.03.2022 stating that no criminal offence has taken place and the concerned police have advised the parties to video and audio record the proceedings and not to destroy them for a period of one year. In fact, on 26.02.2022, the petitioner has addressed a letter to the Managing Committee stating that the proceedings be recorded on video and audio, and till such facility, he would attend the meeting online.

¶68

After the Basavanagudi Women Police issued endorsement dated 29.03.2022, once again, respondent No.2 has filed complaint dated 31.03.2022 to the Thalaghattapura Police, Bengaluru, verbatim making the

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

same allegations. The said police have straightaway registered the case in Cr.No.79/2022. In the said complaint, the respondent No.2 has not disclosed the fact that earlier she had filed complaint with Basavanagudi Women Police station and an endorsement has been issued. From the material placed on record, it is evident that with regard to not following the Bye-laws and furnishing the meeting material, the petitioner has raised several objections, for which the respondent No.2 has taken exception and referring the said objections as sexiest comments, touching modesty of woman.

¶72

Looking to the nature of the allegations made,

¶73

after examining the petitioner and respondent No.2 in the presence of each other, the concerned Inspector of Basavanagudi Women Police Station has issued endorsement stating that no offence as alleged by respondent No.2 is made out. The investigating officer has also advised that the proceedings be video and audio recorded, so as to avoid any such dispute in future. When

¶74

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25161 CRL.P No. 3709 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

already concerned police have given endorsement stating that no offence is made out, it was not open to the complainant/respondent No.2 to once again file the same complaint with some other police station. If at all she was not satisfied with the action taken by the Women Police, she could have challenged the same before the Court of law. Instead of doing that, she has once again filed the complaint which is not tenable.

¶77

In fact in Krishna Lal Chawla , referred to

¶78

supra, relying upon the earlier decision in Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash ( Upkar Singh )⁴ , it is held that the doctrine of sameness prevent filing of multiple complaints on the same subject matter, including private complaint and this rule is applicable to non-cognizable cases also. In the light of the same, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly the following:

¶79