Dismissed

Mr. Meet Goyal v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026CRL.P/12840/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings in CC No. 43923/2026 (Crime No. 178/2026) for offences under Sections 79, 351(2) and 352 BNS 2023. The court held that since one offence against petitioner no. 1 was cognizable, no magistrate's permission was required for investigation, and the petitioners' factual dispute about the incident's occurrence fell outside the scope of a quashing petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Meet Goyal Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

HC-KAR

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:50562 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2026

¶3

¶4

CNR: KAHC010578022026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12840 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. MEET GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O ANOOP GOYAL R/AT H-203, MEADOW IN THE SUN, OWNER COURT WEST, KASAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560035.

¶11

MRS. POOJA AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O MEET GOYAL, R/AT H-203, MEADOW IN THE SUN, OWNER COURT WEST, KASAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560035.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI LEELARAJU M N,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BELLANDUR POLICE STATION, MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶16

MRS. ARATI NANNEBOINA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O VAMSEEKRISHNA NANNEBOINA, R/AT H-003, MEADOW IN THE SUN, OWNER COURT WEST,

¶17

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:50562 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2026

¶21

CNR: KAHC010578022026

¶22

KASAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560035.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI G S ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.43923/2026 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.178/2026 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLI A.C.J.M BENGALURU CITY REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79,351(2) AND 352 OF BNS 2023 BY THE BELLANDUR P.S. MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION BENGALURU CITY.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.

¶31

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.43923/2026 in Crime No.178/2026 pending before the XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶33

that the alleged incident has not taken place. Somebody else

¶34

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶35

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:50562 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2026

¶38

CNR: KAHC010578022026

¶39

might have thrown the food in the garden as alleged in the complaint.

¶40

Learned counsel to the petitioners would submit that some of the offences alleged in the complaint are noncognizable offences and the prosecution could not have been launched without taking permission of the Magistrate.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the petition on the ground that the contentions raised in the petition are based on disputed questions of facts and one of the offences alleged is a cognizable offence against the petitioner no.1, as such, there is no need to obtain the permission.

¶42

The Court has considered the contentions raised

¶43

and perused the records.

¶44

Admittedly one of the offences alleged against the petitioner no.1 is a cognizable offence, as such, there is no need to obtain any permission from the Magistrate before investigating the matter.

¶45

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:50562 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2026

¶49

CNR: KAHC010578022026

¶50

As far as the contention of the petitioners, that alleged incident has not taken place is concerned, it is to be noticed that their contention is based on disputed facts.

¶51

Under the circumstances, the contentions raised relating to the disputed questions of facts are beyond the scope of petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakha Sanhita, 2023. Petition is dismissed.

¶52

Observations made in this order shall not be construed as having expressed anything on the merits of the defence to be raised by the petitioners.

¶53

All contentions are kept open.

¶54

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶55

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶56

CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55

Mr. Meet Goyal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Meet Goyal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases