Sri. Mahimahesh Vs State of Karnataka

292/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, BILIKERE POLICE STATION, HUNSUR CIRCLE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 506 OF IPC INITIATED ON THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.1517/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

¶38

Heard Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶39

The complainant though served long ago, remains unrepresented even today.

¶40

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

¶41

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 purchase the subject properties through a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1997, and get an

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

order of conversion and develop it into a layout and on 11.05.2011. When the khatha is sought to be transferred at the hands of the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar endorses that the khatha cannot be changed since the land has already been converted.

¶46

4.1. When things stood thus, after 23 years of sale, a family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 registers a complaint on 18.11.2020, which becomes a crime in Crime No.292/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 354, 506, 504 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶47

4.2. The Police, after investigation, file a chargesheet

¶48

dropping all the other offences and retaining Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

¶50

vehemently contend that the offences even if taken on its face value would not amount to the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The crime while being registered was glorified by registering several offences, but what remains is the offence

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

of criminal intimidation and nothing else. Learned counsel would further submit that the family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, after 23 years, is wanting to settle a score with the petitioners for the purpose of extortion. He would further submit that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have instituted a suit in O.S.No.207/2020 seeking permanent injunction against the complainant. After the institution of the suit comes the impugned complaint. Therefore, he would seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶55

Learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the fact that the civil suit is pending in O.S.No.207/2020, wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have sought for the relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.2.

¶56

The complainant remains unrepresented though served long ago. Learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the fact of pendency of the civil suit, but would nonetheless submit that the chargesheet is filed and therefore, the trial is permitted to be continued. Hence, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in such full-blown trial.

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶61

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

¶62

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The facts are all a matter of record. The purchase of the petition subject properties happens on 09.01.1997, the complainant is

¶63

the family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who sell the properties to petitioner Nos.1 and 2, 23 years ago. The complaint emerges on 18.11.2020. The backdrop of the complaint is the institution of a suit by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.207/2020. These facts are also not in dispute. Since

¶64

the entire issue is now triggered from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as under:

¶65

"gÀªÀjUÉ,

¶66

¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï ¸À¨ï E¸Àì¥ÉlÖgï gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀÄPÉÌ, ©¼ÉPÉgÉ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ, ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÄèPÀÄ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè.

¶67

ರವ�ಂದ,

¶68

ಹುಣಸೂರು �ಾ®èÆPÀÄ ಹುಣಸೂರು ಪಟ�ಣದ �ೋªÀÄäಣ� §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ zÀÆgÀÄ.

¶69

�ಾನ��ೆ ,

¶70

ಈ �ೕಲ�ಂಡ �ಾ��ಾದ ಾನು ತಮ#$% ದೂರು �ಾ&'ೊಳ)ವ+,ೆ £ÉAದ�ೆ ಹುಣಸೂರು �ಾಲೂ%ಕು ./'ೆ�ೆ ºÉÆಬ/ ,ೊಡ1'ಾಡನಹ/ 2ಾ3ಮದ ಸA ನಂ. 51 ರ$% 5:33

¶71

7 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

ಗುಂ5ೆ ಜ7ೕನು ನನ8 9ೆಂಡ: ತಂ,ೆ�ಾದ ;ೇ. ಾರಯಣ, ಉರು> ಾ�ಾಣಯ�, ?ಕ�ಪ@ ಶಂಕರಯ� 9ಾಗೂ ಅ�ೆC ಈರಮ� 9ೆಸDನ$% ಇದುF �ಾGHೕನ ಅನುಭವದ$% ಇzÉÝÃವ+. ಇದು ನಮ2ೆ J�ಾ3KLತ�ಾzÀ ಬಂ�ರುತC,ೆ .

¶75

�ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ ಮ».ಮ9ೇN 9ಾಗೂ 'ೆ .J. ಈಶGO ಎಂಬುವವರು �ೕಲ�ಂಡವರ 9ೆಸDನ$%ದF ಆ�Cಯನು8 ಅಕ3ಮ�ಾR Sಾ�ೆ �ಾ&�'ೊಂಡು ನಮ2ೆ ಹಲ�ಾರು ವಷLಗ/ಂದ �ೊಂದ�ೆ 'ೊಡು:C,ಾF�ೆ . ಈ UVಾರ�ಾR Wೕ$ೕX YಾZೆ2ೆ ದೂರು [ೕ&ದFರು ಸಹ ನಮ2ೆ ಾ�ಯ ,ೊರ\ರುವ+�;ಾ%.

¶76

ಾವ+ �ಾGHೕನ ಅನುಭವದ$% ಇರುವ ಜ7ೕ[2ೆ 2020-21 ೇ �ಾ$ನ$% ಹುgÀÄ/

¶77

ಮತುC �ಾR ]ೆ^ೆಯನು8 9ಾ\ರು�ೆCೕ�ೆ .

¶78

� ಾಂಕ 14-11-2020 ರಂದು ಾವ+ �ಾGHೕನ ಅನುಭವದ$% ಇರುವ ಜ7ೕ[2ೆ ಮ» ಮ9ೇN, 'ೆ .J. ಈಶGO, ,ೊqÉØÃ2ೌಡ ,ೇ�ೇಂದ3 ಆVಾO 9ಾಗೂ ಇತರರು ಅಕ3ಮ�ಾR ಪ3�ೇಶ�ಾ& KA-09-Z-8771 (`ೆ .�..) ಮೂಲಕ ಾವ+ ]ೆ^ೆ ¢zÀÝ ]ೆ^ೆಯನು8 ಉಳ)� �ಾ& ಾಶಪ&�ರು�ಾC�ೆ .

¶79

ಉಳ)� �ಾ& ಫಸಲು ನಷ� �ಾ&�ರುವ UVಾರ :/ದು ಾನು ಮತುC ನನ8 9ೆಂಡ: ಲ�ಾ ಜ7ೕ[2ೆ 9ೋR ಫಸಲು ಾಶ �ಾ&ದ ಮ», ಮ9ೇಶ ನನು8 ಪ3bೆ8�ಾ&,ಾಗ, [ೕವ+ �ಾರು 'ೇಳ)ವ+ದ'ೆ� ಎಂದು ನನ8 9ೆಂಡ: ಮc^ೆ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß PÁtzÉ C²è®ªÁV ¤A¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶80

ಾನು [ೕವ+ ,ೊಡ1ಮನುಷ�ನು ಈ Dೕ: �ಾತ ಾಡುವ+ದು ತಪ+@ ಎಂzÀÄ 9ೇ/ ಇವರ `ೊ�ೆಯ$% ಇzÀÝ ,ೊqÉØ2ೌಡ 9ಾಗೂ ,ೇ�ೇಂzÀæ ಆVಾO ಎಲ%ರು �ೇD 'ೊ;ೆ �ಾಡಲು ಪ3ಯ:8�ದರು. ಇದನು8 ತdೆದುಬಂದ ನನ8 9ೆಂಡ:ಯನು8 PÉÊ. �ೖ. ಮುe� ಎ^ೆ,ಾ&ದರು. ಆ ಸಂದಭLದ$% ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ಜ7ೕನ$%ದF ;ೋ'ೇಶ ಮತುC ಾ�ಾಯಣ�ಾG7 ಸfಳ'ೆ� ಬಂದು ಜಗಳ .&� ಕಳ)c�ದರು. 9ಾ2ಾR �ೕಲ�ಂಡ ಮc. ಮ9ೇN, ,ೊqÉØÃ2ೌಡ, ,ೇ�ೇಂzÀæ DVಾO 9ಾಗೂ ಇತರರ �ೕ;ೆ 'ಾನೂನು ಕ3ಮ ಜರುRಸುವ+ದ'ೆ� ಮನU �ಾ&ರುvÉÛÃ ೆ .

¶81

ನಮ# �ಾವನ ಮ ೆಯವD2ೆ UVಾರ:/� ಈ �ನ ತಡ�ಾR ದೂರನು8 'ೊe�ರುvÉÛÃ ೆ .

¶82

"ವಂದ ೆಗ^ೆgಂ�2ೆ "

¶83

¸ÀÜ¼À: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ಸc. �ೋಮಣ� ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18.11.2020ªÀ EAw: 18.11.2020 9972830301"

¶84

8 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

The Police thereafter conduct investigation and file the chargesheet. The summary of the chargesheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as under:

¶88

" � ಾಂಕ: 14.11.2020 ರಂದು ಮhಾ�ಹ8 2.15 ಗಂ5ೆ ಸಮಯದ°è, ./'ೆ�ೆ W$ೕX YಾZಾ ಸರಹ�F2ೆ ,ೊಡ1 PÁqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð ನಂ.51 ರ ಜ7ೕ[ನ$% ಈ ,ೋiಾ�ೋಪZಾ ಪತ3ದ$% ನಮೂH�ರುವ ಆ�ೋJ 01 ರವರು ಜ7ೕ[ನನು8 ªÀÄlÖ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ �ಾj-01 ಮತುC �ಾj: 02 ರವರು ಆ�ೋJ-01 ರವರನು8 �ಾ'ೆ ನಮ# ಜ7ೕನನು8 ಉಳ)� �ಾ&� ಮಟ� �ಾqÀÄ¢ÝgÁ CAvÁ PÉÃ½zÀÝPÉÌ ಆ�ೋJಯು �ಾj: 01 ರವD2ೆ ಪ3bೆ8 �ಾಡಲು [ೕನು �ಾರು �ೋ^ೆಮುಂqÉ ಅಂ�ಾ ]ಾk2ೆ ಬಂದಂ�ೆ ¨ÉÊ¢ÝgÀÄªÀÅzÀ®èzÉ, DgÉÆÃ¦- 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ �ಾj: 01 ªÀÄತುC �ಾj: 02 ರವD2ೆ ಜ7ೕ[[ಂದ 9ೊರ2ೆ 9ೋಗ�ದF�ೆ [ಮ#ನು8 'ೊ;ೆ �ಾಡುವ+,ಾR PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ತ[Sಾ 'ಾಲದ$% :/ದು ಬಂ�ರುವ+ದDಂದ ಆ�ೋJಯ Uರುದುl ಕಲಂ: 504, 506 ಐJ� Dೕ�ಾ� ,ೋiಾgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁq¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. À"

¶89

(Emphasis added)

¶90

The summary of the chargesheet is contradictory to the facts. The chargesheet indicates that when the complainant was ploughing the land, the petitioners have entered and intimidated the complainant which would become an offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The said finding in the chargesheet runs counter to the endorsement of the Tahsildar way back in the year 2011, rejecting the change of khatha on the score that the land has already been converted and a layout is formed. It is ununderstandable as to

¶91

9 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

how the complainant ploughs the land in a layout that is formed

¶95

after conversion, when it has lost its status of being an agricultural land. Therefore, the very chargesheet so filed suffers from want of bona fides at the hands of the complainant's pleas.

¶96

Be that as it may, the chargesheet nowhere indicates the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC have its ingredients in Section 503 of the IPC. Section 503 of the IPC is considered by the

¶97

Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH¹ , wherein it is held as under:

¶98

“….

¶99

Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC

¶100

25. Chapter XXII IPC relates to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:

¶101

“ 503. Criminal intimidation .—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

¶102

Explanation .—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.

¶103

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951

¶104

10 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

Illustration

¶108

A , for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B 's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.”

¶109

26. Section 504 reads thus:

¶110

“ 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace .—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶111

27. Section 506 reads thus:

¶112

“ 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation .— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

¶113

if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc .—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶114

28. An offence under Section 503 has the following essentials:

¶115

(1) Threatening a person with any injury;

¶116

( i ) to his person, reputation or property; or

¶117

( ii ) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

¶118

(2) The threat must be with intent;

¶119

( i ) to cause alarm to that person; or

¶120

11 -

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

( ii ) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

¶124

( iii ) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

¶125

29. Section 504 IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self-control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.

¶126

30. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.

¶127

31. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult

¶128

12 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

within the meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504 IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [ King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai , (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:

¶132

“ To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds .”

¶133

(emphasis supplied)

¶134

32. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.

¶135

33. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR.

¶136

34. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct

¶137

13 -

¶138

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present .”

¶141

(Emphasis supplied)

¶142

The summary of the chargesheet is considered on the bedrock of the elucidation of law by the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID quoted supra. If further proceedings are permitted to be continued against these petitioners in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of INDER CHAND BAGRI v. JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI² , wherein it is held as under:

¶143

“…. …. ….

¶144

24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed dated 20.06.2011 and claim damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is already pursuing vide Title Suit No. 160 of 2012 against the appellant-accused which is currently pending adjudication and hence the route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-accused are unsustainable.

¶145

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529

¶146

14 -

¶147

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶148

HC-KAR

¶149

25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami , it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out.

¶150

26. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:

¶151

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶152

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶153

15 -

¶154

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶157

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶158

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶159

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused.

¶160

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶161

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶162

27. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellant-accused herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala-fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal extracted above, squarely applies to the facts of these cases. It is neither

¶163

16 -

¶164

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶165

HC-KAR

¶166

expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.

¶167

28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention the observations of this Court in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 14 SCC 112 wherein it was observed that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No. 1 has made grave allegations against the appellant herein, he has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts. ”

¶168

(Emphasis supplied)

¶169

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶170

O R D E R

¶171

(i) Criminal petition is allowed .

¶172

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1517/2021 (Crime No.292/2020) pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, stand quashed, qua these petitioners;

¶173

17 -

¶174

NC: 2026:KHC:799 CRL.P No. 8586 of 2024

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the

¶177

course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of these petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against the other accused pending before any other fora.

¶178

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶179

JUDGE

¶180

LB

¶181

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri. Mahimahesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mahimahesh v. 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

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka

Udaya @ Subramanya B T Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Unique Labels Vs Chethan Sinchana Steels and Hardware

Venkata Krishna Rao P Vs State by

S.K.Habibar @ Habib Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Dhanalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka