Sri Rupesh v J Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7986 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RUPESH V.J, SON OF LATE JAGADISH.V.N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULUMEPALYA, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126.

¶8

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SMT. MANASA V.J, WIFE OF LATE CHETHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULUMEPALYA, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126.

¶10

SMT. N.E. AMBIKA, WIFE OF JAGADISHWARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULUMEPALYA, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

SMT. NEELA, WIFE OF ANAND BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULUMEPALYA, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126 MOBILE: 09900220940

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.4120/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 354, 504, 506(b) AND 34 OF THE IPC IN CRIME NO.152/2023 BY THE KUNIGAL POLICE AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 challenging the charge-sheet laid by the investigating officer in Crime No. 152/2023 for the offense punishable under sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506(B) r/w section 34 of the IPC pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, in C.C.No.4120/2023.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.

¶28

At the instance of respondent No.2 (C.W.1), a criminal case came to be registered in Crime No.152/2023 for the offences referred to above. According to the prosecution, on 16.05.2023 at approximately 6:30 p.m., respondent No.2, along with her mother and sister-in-law, was sitting outside her residence when the petitioners allegedly arrived with a machete to pluck jackfruit from a tree. At that juncture, Shashikala (C.W.2) is said to have requested the petitioners to take the jackfruit only for

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

domestic use and not for any commercial purpose, as a civil dispute was already pending between the families of the complainant and the petitioners. It is alleged that despite the said request, the petitioners abused and assaulted the complainant and others, thereby leading to the registration of the crime.

¶32

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer without considering the pendency of a civil suit between the parties. It is asserted that the complaint is frivolous and intended to exert pressure in the civil dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the materials on record, as found in the charge-sheet, are insufficient to warrant a full-fledged trial. He points out that the chargesheet lacks substantive evidence implicating the petitioners in the alleged offence and that no wound certificate has been secured by the investigating officer,

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

thereby casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , reported in (2023) 17 SCC 615, to contend that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶36

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, supporting the charge-sheet, submits that the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly, seeking to quash the proceedings only after the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance taken. He further submits that the existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, preclude the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings if the ingredients of the offence are otherwise made out. Referring to the sequence of events, the learned HCGP points out that the alleged counter-case by the petitioners was filed nearly two months after the filing of the chargesheet, which undermines its credibility. On this basis, he

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

urges the Court not to interfere with the proceedings, asserting that the petitioners, having been chargesheeted, are bound to face trial in accordance with law.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon meticulous perusal of the charge-sheet material, this Court finds that the investigating officer has recorded the statements of three material witnesses, including statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and has laid a detailed charge-sheet outlining the commission of cognizable offences. Once a charge-sheet is filed indicating that a prima facie case exists against the accused, this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must tread with caution and refrain from interfering with the criminal proceedings, except in cases where there is a glaring abuse of process or manifest miscarriage of justice.

¶41

It is a settled proposition of law that the inherent powers under Section 482 are to be exercised

¶42

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The mere pendency of a civil suit between the parties does not, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing criminal proceedings when the ingredients of the alleged offences are otherwise disclosed in the charge-sheet. The nature and scope of civil proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecution, and the existence of a civil dispute cannot bar or dilute the jurisdiction of the investigating authorities in probing a cognizable offence.

¶45

In the present case, the charge-sheet is based

¶46

on the statements of material witnesses, including those recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and discloses some material to warrant prosecution and the burden is on the prosecution . This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the proceedings at this stage. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:29166 CRL.P No. 7986 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

8 -

¶50

Pradesh is misplaced, as the facts and circumstances of that case are clearly distinguishable and have no application to the present matter.

¶51

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The criminal petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶53

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Sri Rupesh v. J v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rupesh v. J v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padma. R Vs S. Ravikumar

M/S Whitefield Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G M Kumar Vs Sri Ashwin Mahendra

Sri Shiva @ Shivaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vikram Venkataramana Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Vishal Raghunath Shere Vs State of Karnataka