Dismissed¶54

Venkatesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026CRL.P/1817/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet; Section 482 CrPC; C.C.No.1969/2018; Cr.No.129/2018; counterblast/counter-case Cr.No.128/2018; IPC Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 323, 354, 447, 504, 506; unlawful assembly; criminal trespass; assault; outrage modesty; criminal intimidation; property possession dispute; civil suit decreed; Deputy Commissioner order 10.10.2024; O.S.No.5007/2025; Bhadravathi; Shivamogga; Hosamane Shivaji Circle Police; Karnataka High Court; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheets in both cross-cases (Crime No.129/2018 against the petitioners and Crime No.128/2018 by petitioner No.4), the petitioners' challenge to the case filed by respondent No.2 cannot be dealt with singly; both cases will have to be tried. ¶52

Venkatesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1817 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VENKATESH SHETTY S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC:BUSINESS R/O GANDHINAGARA BEHIND CHURCH BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227

¶9

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MADHUKARA SHETTY S/O SURENDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC:BUSINESS R/O GANDHINAGARA BEHIND CHURCH BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227

¶11

MANJUNATHA SHETTY S/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O GANDHINAGARA BEHIND CHURCH BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227

¶12

POORNIMA SHETTY @ PRIYA SHETTY W/O MADHUKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ADVOCATE R/O GANDHIANGARA BEHIND CHURCH

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227

¶16

SAROJA SHETTY W/O VENAKTESH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O GANDHINAGARA BEHIND CHRUCH BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227

¶17

POOJA SHETTY W/O SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O GANDHINAGARA BEHIND CHURCH BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSAMANE SHIVAJI CIRCLE P S BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA-577227 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE

¶22

SMT MALLAR W/O LATE PANCHAKSHARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O GANDHINAGARA BEHIND CHURCH BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1,

¶24

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1969/2018 OF HOSAMANE SHIVAJI CIRCLE P.S., BHADRAVATHI PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 504, 143, 144, 147, 149, 447, 323, 354 OF IPC CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1969/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL (JR.DN) JUDGE AND JMFC-III, BHADRAVATHI.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have challenged the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1 arising out of Cr.No.129/18 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 144, 147, 447, 323, 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as ‘IPC’) and consequently to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1969/2018 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi.

¶32

(i) The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 04.03.2018 that there was a dispute between her and the petitioners over site No.10 in Sy.No.191/1 of Gandhi Nagar, Bhadravathi Town and that a suit was filed by her, which was decreed in her favour. She claimed that on 28.02.2018, she went to the site to take up construction and the petitioner No.4

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

obstructed her. She therefore went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and informed him about the decree passed and the Deputy Commissioner called the petitioners and told them to comply with the order passed by the Civil Court.

¶37

(ii) Later, on 04.03.2018 she went to the site and the petitioners obstructed her from taking up any developmental activities. She then went to the police station, where the petitioners were advised to follow the order passed by the Civil Court. She claimed that at 8.00 p.m., she went to the site to construct a compound. At that time, the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 formed an unlawful assembly and again obstructed the respondent No.2 from entering the property and also assaulted her. The petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 abused her using offensive language.

¶38

(iii) At that time, one Sri.Ramaswami intervened and he was also abused and assaulted. Later, the daughter of the respondent No.2 came to the spot and pacified the situation. She alleged that the petitioners left the place but claimed that they would not spare the respondent No.2 and threatened to kill her. Based on this, a case in Crime No.129/2018 was

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 447, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same are before this Court.

¶42

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶43

the petitioner No.4 had also lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2 and her husband and a case in Crime No.128/2018 was registered and the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323 and 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order dated 10.10.2024 rejecting an appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and directing the parties to work out their settlement before the Civil Court. He submits that the respondent No.2 has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.5007/2025 and therefore, the dispute essentially is relating to a civil matter and therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the petitioner No.4 has also filed a case in Crime No.128/2018 and the case filed by the respondent No.2 is a counterblast to the case filed by the petitioner No.4. He submits that in both the cases, the police have filed a charge sheet and therefore, it is appropriate that both the cases are taken up for trial. He thus submits that there is no need for interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶48

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 though served with the notice, has not appeared.

¶49

A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1 would show that there was an attempt at taking over possession of the property, which purportedly was the subject matter of a civil suit where the respondent No.2 had succeeded. The fact that there was a scuffle on 04.03.2018 is evident from the complaints filed by the petitioner No.4 as well as the respondent No.2. The

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21824 CRL.P No. 1817 of 2019

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

jurisdictional police after investigating the offences, has filed charge sheet in both the cases. Therefore, the challenge by the petitioners to the case filed by the respondent No.2 cannot be singly dealt with as both the cases will have to be tried. This apart, it is mentioned by the respondent No.2 in the information furnished to the respondent No.1 that she had succeeded in a civil suit. If that be so, the petitioners, who also laid a claim to the property, were bound to honour the decree passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, the question whether the petitioners assaulted the respondent No.2 or vice a versa is something that has to be tried and adjudicated upon by the trial Court and this Court cannot set at nought the prosecution launched against the petitioners and thereby tilt the balance.

¶53

In that view of the matter, no indulgence is

¶54

warranted in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶55

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Venkatesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khader @ Mohammed Khader Vs Janapriya Souharda Multipurpose Co. Operative Ltd.

Sri R S Ashwathanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Yellappa Tigala Vs State by Kadugodi Police Station

Sri Praveen Kumar Vs Smt Mary Sonia

John Rajeev Kirubadkaran Vs State by Banaswadi Police