The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No. 3) for offences under Sections 448, 427, 385, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge-sheet arose from an incident where the petitioner and co-accused allegedly trespassed into a school, threatened staff, caused damage to educational materials, and created public nuisance. The petitioner argued the proceedings were a retaliatory counterblast to her complaints to the Block Education Officer, that no prima facie case existed, and that absence of CCTV footage made the allegations improbable. The court held that witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the spot mahazar specifically attributed overt acts to the petitioner, disclosing the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences. Arguments regarding retaliatory motive, lack of CCTV footage, and absence of criminal intent are defence pleas involving disputed questions of fact that require evaluation at trial, not at the quashing stage. Relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 14 SCC 350, the court reiterated that quashing is warranted only where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. Since the materials prima facie disclosed the petitioner's involvement, the proceedings could not be quashed.
