Smt Ranjitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026CRL.P/5639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; five-month delay in lodging complaint; vague/embellished complaint; abuse of process and arm-twisting via criminal case arising from cheque dishonour under S.138 NI Act; IPC ss.504, 506, 323, 354, 341 r/w 34; ST/ST (POA) Act s.3(1)(r)(s); Crime No.120/2023; Spl.C.No.286/2023 Mandya; Karnataka HC CRL.P No.5639 of 2024; Harilal v. State of Chhattisgarh; Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal; proceedings quashed qua petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed; proceedings in Spl.C.No.286/2023 pending before the Court of Hon'ble V Addl. District and Sessions, Mandya quashed qua the petitioners. ¶110

Smt Ranjitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed; proceedings in Spl.C.No.286/2023 pending before the Court of Hon'ble V Addl. District and Sessions, Mandya quashed qua the petitioners.

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.No.286/2023 against the petitioners were registered only to arm-twist them into yielding in the pending proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and thus constitute misuse of the criminal process. +1 more

¶81

Court's answer

Reading the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet in tandem, what unmistakably emerges is that the complaint was registered only to arm-twist the petitioners to yield in the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

Except the explanation that the complainant's husband had met with an accident, there is no indication as to when the accident occurred, what treatment was taken, when discharge happened, or when the crime came to be registered.

¶70

Key takeaways

The complaint, registered after five months with no wound certificate appended to the charge sheet and no indication of where the abuses were hurled or how the complainant was beaten or injured, is full of embellishments.ratio¶81
Considering the facts on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, permitting further proceedings would run foul of the Apex Court's judgments, and if further trial is permitted it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.ratio¶106

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by mother and son (accused in Spl.C.No.286/2023, V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Mandya) facing charges under Sections 504, 506, 323, 354, 341 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the ST/ST (POA) Act, arising from Crime No.120/2023 registered on 27.08.2023 on a complaint concerning an incident of 02.04.2023. The dispute originated in cheque-dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (PCR No.388/2023; process issued 03.08.2023). Holding that the complaint — lodged after a five-month delay explained only by the complainant's husband's accident, with no wound certificate appended — was registered only to arm-twist the petitioners in the Section 138 case and was full of embellishments, and relying on Harilal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1124) and Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal (2023 SCC OnLine SC 650), the Court held that permitting further trial would be an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice; petition disposed and proceedings quashed qua the petitioners (M. Nagaprasanna, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5639 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. RANJITHA, W/O BOREGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NEAR RAMAMANDIRA, 4^TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶10

HRUDAY B.GOWDA, S/O BOREGOWDA,

¶11

NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NEAR RAMAMANDIRA, 4^TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKARA K. A., FOR SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE OF

¶17

MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA - 571 401. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SANGEETHA M. G., W/O NAGARAJU B., NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TOREBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVASHANKARA Y. D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.286/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT V ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506, 323, 354 AND 341 R/W 34 OF IPC AND 3(1)(r) AND (s) OF ST/ST (POA) ACT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.286/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323, 354, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) of ST/ST (POA) Act.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard Sri.Chandra Shekara K.A, learned counsel

¶33

appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Y.D.Shivashankara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶34

The petitioners and the respondent-complainant have a transaction. The transaction leads the accused to issue certain cheques. The cheques go wrong. The complainant institutes proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and registers a PCR in PCR No.388/2023. Process is issued on 03.08.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On 27.08.2023, a complaint comes

¶35

to be registered against these petitioners which becomes a crime in Crime No.120/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(B), 341, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of ST & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶36

The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet in Special Case No.286/2023. The charge sheet having

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

been filed in the case at hand against the petitioners, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶42

submits that the issue between these are an offshoot of a criminal case registered on account of dishonouring of a cheque. On a particular day that is narrated in the complaint, nothing of that sort has happened which would become an offence under Sections 341 or 354B of the IPC. Learned counsel submits that it is to arm twist these petitioners in yielding to the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the crime is registered.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and the petitioners knew who the complainant was and therefore, it amounts to an offence punishable under the ST & ST (POA) Amendment Act as they have hurled abuses in a place of public view or a public place as the case would be. Learned counsel submits that the other offences would undoubtedly require trial

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial.

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶49

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶50

The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events

¶51

and dates, are all a matter of record, which would not require any iteration. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

“ರವ��ೆ ,

ಆರ�ಕ ��ೕ�ಕರು

ಪ��ಮ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ ,

ಮಂಡ� ��.

ಮಂಡ� ��ೆ�, ಮದೂ!ರು "ಾಲೂ�ಕು, �.ಎ.%ೆ&ೆ 'ೋಬ), "ೊ&ೆ*ೊಮ+ನಹ). �ಾ/ಮದ�� 0ಾಸ0ಾ2ರುವ 3ಾಗ&ಾಜು.6. ರವರ 'ೆಂಡ7 �/ೕಮ7 ಸಂ2ೕತ.ಎಂ.�. ವಯಸು: ಸು;ಾರು 29 ವಷ= ಆದ 3ಾನು �ೕಡು7>ರುವ ದೂರು.

¶57

?ಾ@A 3ಾನು ಈ CೕಲDಂಡ EFಾಸದ 0ಾ�Gಾ2ದು!, 3ಾನು ನನH ಸಂ?ಾರದ Iೊ"ೆ 0ಾಸ0ಾ2ರು"ೆ>ೕ3ೆ . ನಮ�ೆ ಮಂಡ� ��, 43ೇ %ಾ/�, 'ೊಸಹ)., &ಾಮಮಂJರದ ಹ7>ರ ಇ�� 0ಾಸ0ಾ2ರುವ *ೋ&ೇ�ೌಡ ರವರ 'ೆಂಡ7 �/ೕಮ7 ರಂ�ತ ಈ%ೆ ;ಾಧN 'ೆO>

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

ಅಂQ 'ೆO> ಎಂಬ 3ೆR ವS= ಮೂಲಕ ನನH ಗಂಡ 3ಾಗ&ಾಜು ರವ��ೆ ಪ�ಚಯ0ಾ2ದು!, ನನH ಗಂಡನ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ%ೆಯೂ ಸಹ ನನ�ೆ ಪ�UತFಾ2ದು!, ಈ%ೆ ತನH ಕಷVವನುH ನಮ+ಗಳ ಬ) 'ೇ)%ೊಂಡು ನನH ಮತು> ನನH ಗಂಡನ ಸಮು+ಖದ�� 10,00,000/- ಹಣವನುH ?ಾಲ0ಾ2 ಪZೆದು%ೊಂಡರು. ನಂತರ 3ಾವ[ ಈ%ೆಯನುH ಹಣ 0ಾಪ� %ೊಡುವಂ"ೆ %ೇಳ�ಾ2 ಈ%ೆ Gಾವ[\ೋ ಹಣ ಬರ*ೇಕು 0ಾಪ� ಎಲ�ವನುH %ೊಡು"ೆ>ೕ3ೆ 3ಾನು ಈಗ ಕಷVದ�� ಇ\ೆ!ೕ3ೆ ಎಂದು ಸಬೂಬು 'ೇಳ]"ಾ> %ಾ�ಾಹರಣ ;ಾಡು"ಾ> ಬರು7>ದ!ರು. J3ಾಂಕ 02/04/2023 ರಂದು *ಾ ಹಣವನುH %ೊಡುವ[\ಾ2 'ೇ) ಬರ;ಾ^%ೊಂಡರು. ನಂತರ 3ಾನು ಮತು> ನನH ಗಂಡ ಅ\ೇ Jನ *ೆ)�ೆ_ 11 ಗಂೆ ಸಮಯದ�� ಮಂಡ�ದ 43ೇ %ಾ/�, 'ೊಸಹ)., &ಾಮಮಂJರದ ಹ7>ರ ಇರುವ ಅವರ ಮ3ೆಯ ಹ7>ರ 'ೋ2 %ೇಳ�ಾ2 ನಂತರ ಇವರು ಇ�� ಅಕDಪಕDದ ಜನರು ಇ\ಾ!&ೆ ನಮ+ನುH ಆ^%ೊಳ]."ಾ>&ೆ , 3ಾ0ೇ ಮಂಡ�ದ ಕು0ೆಂಪ[ನಗರದ ಗಣಪ7 \ೇವ?ಾaನದ ಹ7>ರ ಬರು"ೆ>ೕ0ೆ 'ೋ2 ಅ�� ಇ� ಎಂದು 'ೇ)ದರು. ನಂತರ ಅ\ೇ Jನ *ೆ)�ೆ_ 11.30 ಗಂೆ�ೆ ರಂ�ತ ಮತು> ಈ%ೆಯ ಮಗ ಹೃದc 6 �ೌಡ ಕು0ೆಂಪ[ನಗರದ ಗಣಪ7 \ೇವ?ಾaನದ ಹ7>ರ ಬಂದರು. ಬಂದ ಇವರ�� ಹೃದc 6 �ೌಡ ಏ%ಾಏe ತನH ಚಪf�ಯನುH "ೆ�ೆದು%ೊಂಡು ಏ3ೋ *ೋ)ಮಕDಳ ಮ3ೆಯ ಹ7>ರ ಬಂದು ದುಡುg %ೇFೆhೕದು, ಆCೕ�ೆ %ೊಡು"ೆ>ೕ0ೆ ಅಂತ 'ೇ)ರ�ಲ@ ಎಂದು ನನHನುH Iಾ^� ತ).ದನು, ನಂತರ ಈತನ "ಾi ರಂ�ತ ಕೂಡ ಈ 'ೊ�ೆಯ ನನHಕDಳ] ನಮ+ ಮ3ೆಯ ಹ7>ರ ಬಂದು ದುಡುg %ೇಳ]ವಷುV ದುರಹಂ%ಾರ ಬಂದು6�V\ೇ, 3ಾನು ಅಂ\ೇ 'ೇ)J!ೕ�, 3ಾನು ಅCೕ�ೆ %ೊಡು"ೆ>ೕ3ೆ ಎಂದು ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಇವರು �ೕವ[ ನಮ+ ಮ3ೆಯ ಬ) ಬಂJJ!ೕರಲ� ಎಷುV ?ೊಕುD ಮತು> ರಂ�ತ ಈ%ೆ �ೕನು ಈ�ೆ ದುಡgನುH 0ಾಪ� %ೊಡು ಎಂದು %ೇ)ದ&ೆ �ನH ಗಂಡನ Cೕ�ೆ &ೇj %ೇ� 'ಾeಸುವ[\ಾ2 *ೆದ�%ೆಯನುH 'ಾeದಳ]. ನಂತರ 3ಾನು ನಮ+ ದುಡgನುH �ೕವ[ ಪZೆದು%ೊಂ^ರುವ[ದು ಅಲ�\ೇ ನಮ�ೆ *ೆದ�%ೆಯನುH 'ಾಕು7>ೕ&ಾ ಎಂದು %ೇ)ದ%ೆD ಈ%ೆಯ ಮಗ ಏ ಸೂFೆಮಕDಳ, ಏ 'ೊ�ೆಯ *ೋ)ಮಕDಳ ನನH "ಾi�ೆ kಂ7ರು2 ;ಾತ3ಾHಡು7>ೕ&ಾ ಎಂದು ಈತ ನನH ಮುಂ\ಾ�ೆಯನುH k^ದು ಎFೆ\ಾ^ ನನH ಎಡ ಕlಾಲ%ೆD ಈತನ ಬಲ�ೈiಂದ 'ೊZೆದು, Iಾ^� ತ).ದನು. ನಂತರ ನನH ಗಂಡ ಈತ�ಂದ ನನHನುH 6^�ದರು. ನಂತರ 3ಾನು ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ�ೆ 'ೋV ದೂರನುH �ೕZೋಣ0ೆಂದು 'ೋಗಲು ಮುಂ\ಾದಗ ಹೃದc 6 �ೌಡ ಈತ ನನHನುH ಮುಂದ%ೆD 'ೋಗಲು 6ಡ\ೇ ಅಡgಗ�V%ೊಂಡು �ೕವ[ ಎ� � ೆ 'ೋಗು7>ೕ&ಾ ಅ\ೇನು eತು>%ೊಳ].7>ೕ&ಾ 3ಾನು ಒಂದು %ೈ 3ೋ^%ೊಳ]."ೆ>ೕ3ೆ 'ಾಗೂ ಇ3ೊHಂದು *ಾ� ನಮ+ ಮ3ೆಯ ಹ7>ರ ಬಂದು ದುಡುg %ೇ)ದ&ೆ �ಮ�ೆ ಒಂದು ಗ7ಯನುH %ಾpಸುವ[\ಾ2 %ೊ�ೆ ೆದ�%ೆಯನುH 'ಾeದರು. ನಂತರ 3ಾನು ಮಂಡ� ��ಾ� ಆಸf"ೆ/�ೆ 'ೋ2 Ue"ೆ:ಯನುH ಪZೆದು%ೊಂ^ದು!, ನಂತರ 3ಾನು ನಮ+ ಜ3ಾಂಗದ ಮುಖಂಡ&ಾದ \ಾ�ವಪಟVಣದ ಯ7ೕr ರವ��ೆ ಈ EsಾರವನುH 7)ಸ�ಾ2 ಇವರು ದುಡುಕೇ^ %ೇFೆhೕಣ0ೆಂದು 'ೇ)ದರು ಆದ&ೆ ಇವರು Gಾರ ;ಾ7ಗೂ ಮನH�ೆ �ೕಡ\ೇ Gಾವ[\ೇ 3ಾ�ಯ ಪಂsಾi7�ೆ *ಾರ\ೇ 'ೋದರು. 'ಾಗೂ ನನH ಗಂಡ ಅ3ಾ&ೋಗ�Jಂದ ಬಳಲು7>ದು! ಇವ��ೆ Ue"ೆ:ಯನುH %ೊ^ಸು7>ದು!ದ�ಂದ ಮತು> ನನH ಗಂಡ��ೆ ಇ7>ೕsೆ�ೆ ರ?ೆ> ಅಪtತ0ಾ2 �.;ಾ\ೇ�ೌಡ

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ಮ�V?ೆfuಾ�� ಆಸf"ೆ/ %ೆ .ಎಂ.\ೊ^g ಇಲ� ಒಳ&ೋ2Gಾ2 \ಾಖಲು ;ಾ^%ೊಂಡು ಅವರ vೕಗwೇಮ 3ೋ^%ೊಳ].7>ದು! ನಂತರ ರ?ೆ> ಅಪtತದ ಬ�ೆ_ 3ಾನು %ೆ .ಎಂ.\ೊ^g ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ�ೆ 'ೋ2 ದೂರನುH \ಾಖ��ದು! ಇದರ %ೆxಂ ನಂ.113/2023 ಅ2ರುತ>\ೆ . ಆದುದ�ಂದ ಈ Jನ ತಡ0ಾ2 ಬಂದು ದೂರನುH �ೕಡು7>\ೆ!ೕ3ೆ .

¶66

ಆದ&ೆ 3ಾವ[ ಪರಸaಳದವ&ಾ2ದ!�ಂದ ಗ�ಾೆ ನZೆದ ಸaಳವ[ Gಾವ ಏ�Gಾ ಎಂದು 7)ಯ�ೇ �ಾಬ�ಯ�� 'ೊಸಹ). �ಾಂyನಗರ ಎಂದು 0ೈದ�ರ ಬ) 'ೇ)ರು"ೆ>ೕ3ೆ . ಆದ&ೆ ಗ�ಾೆ ನZೆದ ಸaಳವ[ ಕು0ೆಂಪ[ನಗರದ ಗಣಪ7 \ೇವ?ಾaನದ ಹ7>ರ ಅ2ರುತ>\ೆ .

¶67

ಆದುದ�ಂದ ಈ CೕಲDಂಡವರುಗಳ Cೕ�ೆ %ಾನೂನು �"ಾ� ಕ/ಮ ಜರು2ಸ*ೇ%ೆಂದು ತಮ+�� ಈ ಮೂಲಕ %ೇ)%ೊಳ]."ೆ>ೕ3ೆ .

¶68

ಇಂ7 ಸk/(ಸಂ2ೕತ ಎಂ �) ~*ೈO ನಂ:9620189043

¶69

ಸaಳ : ಮಂಡ� J3ಾಂಕ: 27/08/2023.”

¶70

The complaint is registered on 27.08.2023 of an incident that takes place 5 months ago on 02.04.2023. The feign explanation that is rendered while registering the complaint with the delay of 5 months is that the husband of the complainant had met with an accident and therefore, the complainant was engaged in treating the husband. Except the said explanation, there is no indication as to when the husband of the complainant met with an accident, what was the treatment taken, when was the discharge and when the crime comes to be registered.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Therefore, it is a complaint that sprang out of vagueness. The police after investigation file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet is as follows:

¶75

“17. %ೇ�ನ ಸಂˆಪ> , ?ಾ&ಾಂಶ

¶76

J3ಾಂಕ 04-02-2023 ರಂದು *ೆ)UÉÎ 11-30 ಗಂೆ ಸಮಯದ�� ಘನ 3ಾ�Gಾಲಯದ 0ಾ�‹>�ೆ ?ೇ�ರುವ 'ಾಗೂ ಮಂಡ� ಮ��ಮ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ಾ ಸರಹJ!ನ ಮಂಡ� �� ಕು0ೆಂಪ[ನಗರ �/ೕ ಪ/Œಾಂತ ಬಲಮು� ಗಣಪ7 \ೇವ?ಾaನದ \ೇವ?ಾaನದ ಮುಂ•ಾಗದ �ೇR ಬ) ?ಾವ=ಜ�ಕ ಸaಳದ�� ಪ��ಷV Iಾ7 ಆy ಕ3ಾ=ಟಕ ಜ3ಾಂಗ%ೆD ?ೇ�ರುವ ?ಾˆ-1 ಮತು> ?ಾˆ-2 ರವ�ಂದ ಸವp=ಯ ಜ3ಾಂಗ%ೆD ?ೇ�ರುವ ಎ-1 ರವರು ಹಣ ?ಾಲ0ಾ2 ಪZೆJದು!, ಹಣ%ಾ�ನ Esಾರದ�� ;ಾತ3ಾಡುವ ಎಂದು 'ೇ) C°è�ೆ ಎ-1 ಮತು> ಎ-2 ರವರು ಬಂದು ಎ-2 ರವರು ಏS ದŽ ?ಾˆ-1 ರವ��ೆ ಏ3ೋ *ೋ) ಮಕDಳ ನಮ+ ಮ3ೆಯ ಹ7>ರ ಬಂದು ದುಡುg %ೇಳ]7>ೕ&ಾ ಆCೕ�ೆ %ೊಡು"ೆ>ೕ0ೆ ಎಂದು 'ೇ)ರ�ಲ�, 0ಾ 'ೊ�ೆಯ ನನH ಮಕDFಾ ಎಷುV ?ೊಕುD �ಮ+�ೆ ಚಪf� ತ�ೆದು%ೊಂಡು 'ೊZೆಯು"ೆ>ೕ3ೆ ಎಂದು *ೈಯು"ಾ>, ?ಾವ=ಜ�ಕ ಸaಳದ��, ?ಾˆ-1 ರವರ ಮುಂ\ೆ�ೆ k^ದು%ೊಂಡು ಎFೆ\ಾ^, ತನH ಬಲ%ೈiಂದ ?ಾˆ-1 ರವರ ಎಡ ಕlಾಲ%ೆD 'ೊZೆದು, Iಾ^� ಕ6•ಣದ �ೇR Cೕ�ೆ ತ).ದು!, ಎ-1 ರವರು ?ಾˆ-1 ರವ��ೆ 'ೊ�ೆಯ ಸೂFೆ ಮುಂZೆ �ೕನು ಇಷುV ಜನ ಕ&ೆದು%ೊಂಡು ನಮ+ ಮ3ೆಯ ಹತ/ ಬಂದು ದುಡುg %ೇಳ]\ೆ/ �ನ�ೆ *ೈಯ\ೆ ಇ3ೆHೕನು ;ಾಡ*ೇಕು ಸೂFೆ ಮುಂZೆ ಎಂದು ಅ0ಾಚ� ಶಬ!ಗ)ಂದ *ೈಯು"ಾ> ಎ -1 ಮತು> ಎ-2 ಇಬ•ರು ?ೇ� ?ಾˆ-1 ರವ��ೆ %ೈiಂದ CೖCೕ�ೆ 'ೊZೆದು ?ಾ;ಾನ� ಸ@ರೂಪದ �ಾಯ ಉಂಟು ;ಾ^ \ೌಜ=ನ�0ೆಸ2ದು!, ?ಾˆ-1 ರವ��ೆ ಹ¯Éèiಂದ ಮತು> %ೆಳ%ೆD 6ದು! lೆಾV2ದ!�ಂದ ?ಾˆ-2 ರವರು Cೕಲ%ೆD ಎ7> ಆಸf"ೆ/�ೆ ಕ&ೆದು%ೊಂಡು 'ೋಗು7>\ಾ!ಗ J-1 ಮತು> J-2 ರವರು ?ಾˆ-1 ಮತು> ?ಾˆ-2 ರವರನುH ಮುಂ\ೆ 'ೋಗದಂ"ೆ ತZೆದು �� ೕನು ಮ"ೆ> ದುಡುg %ೇ)%ೊಂಡು ಬಂ\ೆ/ �ನ�ೆ ಒಂದು %ಾpಸು"ೆ>ೕ3ೆ ಎಂದು lಾ/ಣ *ೆದ�%ೆ ಕಲಂ 323, 354, 341, 504, 506 PÀÆqÀ 34 L.¦.¹ PÀÆqÀ 3(1) (r), (s) SC/ST (PA) 7ದು!ಪ^ %ಾ‘! 2015 ರ �ೕ"ಾ� �wಾಹ= ಅಪ&ಾಧ0ೆಸ2ರುವ[ದು ?ಾˆ-1 ರವರ ದೂರು, ಮುಂದುವ�ದ 'ೇ)%ೆ , ?ಾˆ\ಾರರ 'ೇ)%ೆಗಳ] ಮತು> ಸaಳ ಮಹಜ’ ?ಾ�“ಗ)ಂದ 'ಾಗು ?ಾˆ-8 ರವರು �ೕ^ರುವ �ಾಯದ ಪ/;ಾಣ ಪತ/ ಮತು> ?ಾˆ-11 ಮತು> 12 ರವರು �ೕ^ರುವ Iಾ7 ದೃ^ೕಕರಣ ಪತ/ಗ)ಂದ ದೃಡಪ�Vರು"ೆ>.

¶77

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

ಆದ!�ಂದ ಈ \ೋuಾ&ೋಪ�ಾ ಪತ/ದ %ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ’ 12 ರ�� ಕಂಡ ಆ&ೋ‹ಗಳEರುದ” %ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ’ 5 ರ��, ಕಂಡ ಕಲಂ ಮತು> %ಾ‘!ಗಳ �ೕ"ಾ� \ೋuಾ&ೋಪಣ ಪತ/ ಸ� � ರು"ೆ>.”

¶81

If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet is read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that the complaint is registered only to arm-twist the petitioners to yield in the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As an incident on 02.04.2023 is complained of after 5 months and the allegation is that the complainant has been beaten black and blue and also hurled abuses, where the abuses are hurled and how the complainant is beaten or an injury sustained, is not forthcoming as there is no wound certificate appended to the charge sheet. Therefore, the complaint being registered after five months is full of embellishments. This is what the Apex Court holds that complaints registered after considerable delay must be viewed with circumspection, as they would be filled with embellishments. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of HARILAL vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH¹ , wherein it is held as follows:

¶82

1 2023 SSC onLine SC 1124

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶84

10 -

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

"….

¶87

19. The statement of PW-9 is of significance for multiple reasons. First, that PW-2 did not inform her about the night incident as is alleged by PW-2 in his deposition; second, the body of the deceased was found near the temple and was kept there overnight; and third, if no one had told PW-9 about the incident, why a named FIR was lodged.

¶88

20. Although there might not have been a specific question put to PW-9 as regards the delay in lodging the FIR but the fact that it was a delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work. More so, in a case where probability of no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of night occurrence in an open place or a public street. ”

¶89

(Emphasis supplied)

¶90

The Apex Court in CHANCHALPATI DAS vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL² , has held as follows:

¶91

"….

¶92

15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing

¶93

2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650, paras 15 to 17

¶94

11 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.

¶98

16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-22009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed by the then authorised persons of ISKCON, Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the charge-sheet papers.

¶99

17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court's precious time.”

¶100

(Emphasis supplied)

¶101

The facts obtaining in the case at hand, if considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court,

¶102

12 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:2340 CRL.P No. 5639 of 2024

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

permitting further proceedings would run foul of the judgment

¶106

of the Apex Court and if further trial is permitted, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶107

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶108

O R D E R

¶109

[I] Criminal Petition is disposed .

¶110

[II] Proceedings in Spl.C.No.286/2023, pending on the file of the Court of Hon'ble V Addl. District and Sessions, Mandya, qua the petitioners stand quashed.

¶111

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶112

CBC

¶113

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:SS

Smt Ranjitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ranjitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunathaswamy Vs the State by Banaswadi Police Station

Sri. Irfan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

K Seetharaman Vs M Hanumanna

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nithin a S Vs State by

Mr Sandeep K Reddy Vs State of Karnataka