Allowed¶66

Mr Shankere Gowda v. State of Karnataka by

Quashing of FIR – No allegations against accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 – Abuse of process

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2025CRL.P/9673/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 — CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, 20-02-2025, M.Nagaprasanna J. FIR in crime No.293/2024 (Tumkuru Town PS; SS.327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468, 34 IPC) quashed under S.482 CrPC: complaint contained no allegation against petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 (allegations were only against complainant's wife and brother-in-law); further investigation would be abuse of process and miscarriage of justice; petition allowed; petitioners' bank accounts de-frozen by IO during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR registered in crime No.293/2024 (offences punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the IPC) and of the complaint/proceedings thereon. ¶66

Mr Shankere Gowda Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR registered in crime No.293/2024 (offences punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the IPC) and of the complaint/proceedings thereon.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in crime No.293/2024 and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners (arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4 and 7), in whose favour the complaint contains no allegations, ought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

¶37

Court's answer

There is no allegation against the petitioners in the entire complaint; they are said to be friends of the complainant's brother-in-law or close to his wife, and all the allegations are against the brother-in-law and the wife.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing worth the ingredient in the complaint for permitting even an investigation in the case.

¶58

Key takeaways

Finding no allegations against the petitioners, permitting further investigation would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.ratio¶63
During the pendency of the petition the Investigating Officer de-frozen the petitioners' accounts; the grievance of frozen bank accounts is no longer in subsistence.obiter¶59
The criminal petition is allowed and the FIR registered in crime No.293/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the IPC stands quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — No allegations against accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 — Abuse of process — S.482 CrPC: The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 in crime No.293/2024 registered by Tumkuru Town Police on the complaint of respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 IPC, sought quashing of the FIR and complaint. The complaint alleged a conspiracy by the complainant's wife, brother-in-law and friends to kill him, including administering a powder in his food, forcible hospitalisation and shock treatment, and forging documents to siphon contract monies. Perusal of the complaint showed no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners, who were said to be friends of the complainant's brother-in-law or close to his wife; all allegations were against the brother-in-law and the wife. Counsel for respondent No.2 conceded there was no averment against the petitioners, and the State likewise admitted there were no allegations against them. The Court held that permitting further investigation despite the absence of allegations would be an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in crime No.293/2024. During pendency, the Investigating Officer had de-frozen the petitioners' bank accounts, mooting that grievance. (Single judge: M.Nagaprasanna J.; decision dated 20-02-2025.)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9673 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SHANKERE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O BORAIAH H RESIDENT OF VADDARA KEMPAPURA, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, CHOWDANAKUPPE, TUMKURU - 572 123

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

MR. ABHILASH T S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE T N SHIVAKUMAR, RESIDING AT SAI NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, NEAR OLD NEHRU ENGLISH SCHOOL, KRISHNANAGAR SHETTIHALLI, TUMKURU - 572 103.

¶11

MR. RAVISHANKAR S N AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJU V, RESIDING AT MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, BADDHALLI, NEAR SLN BANGLES, TUMKURU - 572 104

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMKURU TOWN POLICE STATION, TUMKURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

MR. ALLAMMA PRABHU T K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY T B RESIDING AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKURU - 572 101

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL.SPP FOR R1; SRI. CHAITANYA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR. NO. 293/2024 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468, 34 OF IPC, NOW PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM COURT AT TUMKURU ON THE COMPLAINT OF MR. ALLAMA PRABHU SUDHA REGISTERED BY THE TUMKURU TOWN POLICE, TUMKURU.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners - accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 are at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.293/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

¶27

Heard Shri Praveen C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Chaitanya S.G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶28

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶29

The second respondent is the complainant. A complaint

¶30

comes to be registered on the score that in the year 2014, the second respondent had begun his avocation as a civil contractor. The brother-in-law of the second respondent gets a contract work from one IMC company in July-2019 for a

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶33

contract value of Rs.50/-crores and to manage the work and help him in the work took assistance of these petitioners. It is the allegation of the second respondent that the petitioners along with others had a conspiracy that they would kill him conspiring with the wife of the second respondent - complainant, as the amount involved in the contract or in future contracts are huge. It is further averment in the complaint that in a plot ploy to kill the second respondent, a certain powder is mixed in the breakfast due to which the health and behavior of the complainant begun to change. The wife and the brother-in-law and friends forcibly admitted the complainant to a particular hospital, where he was given shock treatment and had lost his consciousness. Based upon the aforesaid incident, the complainant draws every person into the web of crime, his wife, his brother-in-law and his friends by registering a complaint. The complaint becomes a crime in crime No.293/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioners - accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 are at the doors of this Court on the score that in a dispute between the husband and the wife or the family members, the petitioners without any rhyme or reason have been drawn into the web of these

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶36

proceedings. The resultant action of drawl of these petitioners is that their bank accounts get frozen. On all these scores, the present petition is preferred.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the averments in the petition contending that the petitioners have nothing to do with the dispute between the husband and the wife or the brother-in-law. In the entire complaint there is no allegation of any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. He would therefore, seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the second respondent though put up vehement opposition to the submissions would ultimately accept that there is no averment in the complaint against these petitioners and would leave the decision to the Court.

¶39

The respondent - State would also toe to the lines of the learned counsel for the respondent in admitting the fact that there are no allegations against the petitioners in the complaint.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶42

In the light of the said submission, all that is

¶43

required to be noticed is the complaint that has become crime in crime No.293/2024. The complaint reads as follows:

¶44

" gÀವ��ೆ ,

¶45

�ಾ�ಾ��ಾ�ಗಳ� ನಗರ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ನಗರ,

¶46

ಇಂದ, �.�ೆ ಅಲ�ಮಪ ಭು "# $ೇ% �." ಕು&ಾ' (ಾ)* 40 ವಷ,, �ಂ�ಾ-ತ ಜ/ಾಂಗ, ಕಂ0ಾ ಕ1' �ೆಲಸ, 3ಾಸ;ಮು4�ೆ5ೆ �ಾ ಮ, ಬುಗುಡನಹ9:, �ೕ�1, ;ೆ<ಾ:= >ೋಬ9 ತುಮಕೂರು ?ಾಲೂ�ಕು & @$ೆ�. �ೕ# ನಂ:9845636126.

¶47

&ಾನA5ೇ,

¶48

=ಷಯ;Cೕಸ, ವಂಚ/ೆ , �ೊ$ೆ ಪ ಯತE &ಾF ನನE ಹ$ೆ � ೆ ಯGEHರುವವರ =ರುದI �ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ �ೈ�ೊಳ�:ವ ಬ�ೆK.

¶49

ಈ NೕಲOಂಡ =ಷಯ�ೆO ಸಂಬಂ�Hದಂ?ೆ ಈ�ೆK 2014 ರ�� /ಾನು H=P ಕಂ0ಾ ಕ1' �ೆಲಸವನುE Qಾ ರಂRH�ೊಂಡು @ೕವನ ನSೆH�ೊಂಡು ಬಂ4ರು?ೆTೕ/ೆ , ನನE ನನE ಅಕOನ ಗಂಡ ( =ಶ)/ಾಥ H, ?ಾರ9) ರವರು 2019 ರ ಜು$ೈನ�� ಐ.ಎಂ.H ಕಂಪY-ಂದ 50 �ೋ�ಗೂ *ೕ�ದ ಒಂದು ಗುGT�ೆ �ೆಲಸ ನನ�ೆ H[Oದು, ಈ ಗುGT�ೆ �ೆಲಸವನುE Yವ,]ಸಲು ಮತುT �ೆಲಸ�ೆO ಸ>ಾಯ &ಾಡಲು ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತ5ಾದ ಶಂಕ5ೇ�ೌಡ ಮತುT ಅR$ಾಷ, =ಯ_ ಕುಂಆ', ರ=ಶಂಕ' >ಾಗೂ =ೕರಭದ ತಲ3ಾ' ಮತುT ಇತರರು ನಮa ಕುಟುಂಬ�ೆO ತುಂ;ಾ ಹGTರ3ಾದರು. ನಂತರ ನನE �ೆಲಸದ�� ಆcಾಯ ಮತುT ದುಡುNಯನುE /ೋF ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತರು (ೇ��ೊಂಡು ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರ&ಾ�ೆ ಅವನನುE "ಟು1 "ಡು ಈ �ೆಲಸ ಮತುT ಅವರ ಆcಾಯ YನEcಾಗುತTcೆ ಅವನನುE ಹ?ೆA &ಾFದ5ೆ /ಾವe fೆ/ಾEgರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ತ$ೆ ಕSೆHದ\�ಂದ 2020 �ಂದ ನನE >ೆಂಡGಯ ಅವರ hತೂ� &ಾತನುE �ೇಳ?ೊಡgದಳ�.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶52

ಅದರಂ?ೆ ನನEನುE ಹ?ೆA &ಾಡಲು /ಾನು (ೇ=ಸುವ ಆ>ಾರದ�� ಮತುT ಊಟ GಂFಯ�� jಾವecೋ ಪeFಯನುE ;ೆರH �ೊಡುGTದ\�ಂದ ನನE ಆ5ೋಗA ಮತುT ನಡವ9�ೆಗಳ� ಬದ$ಾವ�ೆಗ<ಾದವe. ಆದ ನನEನುE ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರ&ಾ ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತರು (ೇ��ೊಂಡು 2021ರ ಜನವ� 2/ೇ 3ಾರದ�� ಬಲವಂತ3ಾg ಸkಂದನ ಆಸk?ೆ �ೆ (ೇ�H ನನ�ೆ ಅ�� lಾm 0ೆ ೕ% Nಂ% �ೊFH ನನ�ೆ ಪ nೆ >ೋಗುವಂ?ೆ &ಾF /ಾನು jಾವeದಕೂO ಉಪpೕಗ ;ಾರದಂ?ೆ ನನE Nೕ$ೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂhHರು?ಾT5ೆ ,.

¶53

ನಂತರ ನನ�ೆ �ೕ% Nಂ% �ೊಡುGTದ\ Sಾಕ1' ಕುಪeಬು ರವರು /ಾನು ಅವರ qೊ?ೆ ಅಸಭA �ೕG ನSೆದು�ೊಳ�:ವಂ?ೆ ನನEನುE ಪ fೋ4ಸುGTದ\ರು ನನE ಅಕOನು Sಾಕ1' ಬ9 (ೆ�ೆಂr ಒhYಯ# ?ೆ�ೆದು�ೊಳ:ಲು ಸೂsHದರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರನುE 4ಕO�H ಅವರು lಾm 0ೆ ೕ% Nಂ% ಗಳನುE �ೊ�1ರು?ಾT5ೆ , ನನE t ೕಮG ಮತುT ಅವರ ಸಹಚರರು ನನE �ಾ' �ೆಎ-06ಜr 3336 ನ��ದ\ @.h.ಎ� $ೊ�ೇಷ# F�ೆ1ೕಟ' ನುE ಉcೆ\ೕಶಪuವ,ಕ3ಾgvೕ F� ಕ/ೆm1 &ಾFರು?ಾT5ೆ .

¶54

ನಂತರ ನನE ?ಾ- 3 Gಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಆಸk?ೆ -ಂದ ನನEನುE 3ಾಪಸುw ಮ/ೆ�ೆ ಕ5ೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಬಂದರೂ ನನ�ೆ Cದ�ನಂ?ೆ �ೆಲಸ &ಾಡಲು ಆಗುGTರ�ಲ� ಮತುT ಬು4Iಶ[Tಯು ಕFNjಾgತುT.

¶55

4/ಾಂಕ;05/06/2024 ರಂದು ಮcಾAಹE 3-00 ಗಂ0ೆಯ�� ನನE >ೆಂಡG ಮತುT ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತ5ೆಲ�ರೂ (ೇ��ೊಂಡು ನನEನುE ತುಮಕೂರು ಸx �@ೕಸ1' ಕfೇ� ಬ9 ಕ5ೆH�ೊಂಡು ನನE ಬ9 ಇದ\ ==ಧ ;ಾAಂ[ನ ;ಾಂm fೆm ಗಳ Nೕ$ೆ ಸ] >ಾ[H�ೊಂFರು?ಾT5ೆ . ಅದಲ�cೆ ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರಮa ನನE dಾವ ಮತುT (ೆEೕ]ತ5ಾದ ಶಂಕ5ೇ�ೌಡ, ಅ"$ಾಷ ಮತುT ಇತರರು ನನE£ÀÄß ಸು��ೆ &ಾಡಲು ಪತೂ� &ಾF ನನE ;ಾAಂ[ನ zಾ?ೆಯನುE &ಾA# Sೇ% ಪSೆದು�ೊಂಡು CªÀgÀÄ Yವ,]ಸುವಂ?ೆ ಹಣ ?ೆ�ೆದು�ೊಳ:ದಂ?ೆ cಾಖ$ೆಗಳನುE (�ೕಜ,�) &ಾF�ೊಂಡು ಹಣವನುE ಅಕ ಮªÁV ಅವರ zಾ?ೆ�ೆ ಮತುT ನಗcಾg ವ�ಾ,ವ�ೆ &ಾF�ೊಂFದ\ಲ�cೆ . ನನE �ೆಲಸ�ೆO ಸಂಬಂ�HದAvÉ cಾಖ$ಾGಗಳನುE ಮತುT ನನE ಸ]ಯನುE �ೕಜ,� &ಾF ಅವ5ೇ �ೆಲಸವನುE /ೋF�ೊಳ�:ವ ºÁUÉ &ಾF�ೊಂFರು?ಾT5ೆ .

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶57

ಆದ\�ಂದ ?ಾವeಗಳ� ನನE Nೕ$ೆ hತೂ� &ಾF ಹಣ ಸು��ೆ &ಾF ನಕ� cಾಖ$ೆಗಳ� ಸೃ~1H�ೊಂಡು ನನE ಹ?ೆA�ೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂhH ನನ�ೆ Cೕಸ &ಾF ಹಣ ವ�ಾ,ವ�ೆ &ಾF�ೊಂಡು ನನE£ÀÄß &ಾರ�ಾಸ•ಗಳನುE ?ೋ�H ನನE cಾಖ$ಾGಗಳನುE [ತುT�ೊಂಡು ನನ�ೆ @ೕವ ;ೆದ��ೆ >ಾ[ ನನE ªÉÄÃ¯É ಹ$ೆ�ೆ ಯGEHದವರ =ರುದI ನನE >ೆಂಡG ರಮa, ನನE ;ಾವ =ಶ)/ಾಥ ಮತುT ನನE (ೆEೕ]ತ5ಾಗzÀ, ಶಂಕ5ೇ�ೌಡ, ಅ"$ಾಷ, =ಜಯಕು&ಾ' ಮತುT =ೕರಭದ , ತಲQಾ' ಅವರ Nೕ$ೆ �ಾನೂನು �ೕ?ಾA PÀæªÀÄ ಜರುgಸ;ೇ�ೆಂದು ತಮa�� ೇ9�ೊಳ�:?ೆTೕ/ೆ . ¢£ÁAPÀ; 16/07/2024 "

¶58

In the entire complaint as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no allegation against these petitioners. They are said to be the friends of the brother-inlaw of the complainant or close to the wife. All the allegations are against the brother-in-law and the wife. All that the complaint narrates is that the wife, brother-in-law and his friends have all indulged in the act of making the petitioner unconscious and trying to hatch a conspiracy to kill him. There is nothing worth the ingredient in the complaint for permitting the investigation even in the case at hand.

¶59

During the pendency of the petition, the Investigating Officer has de-frozen the account of the petitioners and therefore, the said grievance also is no longer in subsistence today.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:7956 CRL.P No. 9673 of 2024

¶62

9. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, finding

¶63

no allegations against these petitioners, permitting further investigation even would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶64

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶67

ii) FIR registered in crime No.293/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 327, 328, 308, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the IPC stands quashed.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA