Allowed

Mr Francis Clavier v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/23474/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a whistle-blower alleging misuse of public funds by Church authorities, faced FIR for offences under Sections 341, 354, 504 and 506 IPC based on an informant's complaint with four days' delay and no eyewitnesses. The High Court found mala fide institution and quashed the chargesheet proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet proceedings in Crime No.156/2020 pending before 4th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, quashed against the petitioner.

Mr Francis Clavier Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23474 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. FRANCIS CLAVIER, S/O. RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SRIGANDHA NILAYA 1^ST FLOOR, GOWRI KOPPALU, VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN-573201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EXTENSION POLICE STATION, KUVEMPU NAGARA HASSAN - 573 201 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

MARY ANTHONITHA, D/O LATE ANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROFESSION. BUSINESS 6^TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGARA HASSAN - 573 201

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1

¶18

SRI. SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGESHEET PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4^TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN CRIME NO.156/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J. AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner being the accused in Crime No.156/2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), pending on the file of the learned 4^th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶27

Heard Sri Manjunath Prasad H.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Sudarshan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶32

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶34

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶35

REASONS

¶36

Respondent No.2 filed the first information as per Annexure-G on 29.09.2020 against the petitioner alleging that, on 25.09.2020 at about 12-45 P.M. when she was proceeding on the public road, the accused came and addressed her in a derogatory way, caught-hold of her and pushed her by looking at her inappropriately. He has also given life threat to the informant. In the meantime, her brother-Alponse Mariappa came to the spot. She informed him about the incident and thereafter filed the complaint, requesting the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is stated that the investigation is completed and the final report came to be filed. As per column No.17 of the final report, on the date of incident i.e. on 25.09.2020 in the afternoon, the accused pulled the hand and cloths of the informant and gave life threat by looking at her inappropriately. Four witnesses are cited. CW.1 is the informant-respondent No.2; CW.2 is none other than the brother of respondent No.2; CW.3 is the mahazar witness and CW.4 is the Investigating Officer.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Annexure-E-the complaint dated 10.03.2020 addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, stating that the Church authorities in the District are concocting false documents and claiming huge sums of amount from the Minority Department under the guise of renovating or repairing the Church Buildings and thereby misusing the public fund. Since he had filed the complaint against the Church authorities, they with the support of their followers are attempting on his life. Therefore, he requested the Deputy Commissioner to provide him security. It is pertinent to note in Annexure-E that, the petitioner has

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

specifically referred to the name of respondent No.2 as she is also involved in threatening him.

¶46

The allegations made against the petitioner by respondent No.2 and the allegations as made in Column No.17 of the final report are to be taken into consideration in the light of the inordinate delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint and also in view of the allegations made in Annexure-E that was filed on 10.03.2020 much prior to the filing of the present complaint.

¶47

Placing reliance on the Annexure-E, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that to silence the petitioner who is the whistle blower against misuser of the public fund, false complaint came to be filed by the petitioner.

¶48

The sequence of events narrated and also the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident supports the contention of the petitioner. If in fact such incident had occurred on 25.09.2020 in the afternoon and when the brother of respondent No.2 came to the spot immediately, nothing prevented her from filing the complaint without waiting. There is absolutely no reason assigned as to why she had waited till

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

29.09.2020 for filing the first information against the petitioner. Except the interested say of the informant regarding commission of the offence, there are no other materials available even in the final report. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a case that was registered with an ulterior motive to silence the petitioner who is making allegations against the Church authorities, regarding misuse of the public fund.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana

¶54

and Ors V/s Bhajan Lal and Ors.¹ especially sub-para (7) of para 105. The Hon'ble Apex Court has issued certain guidelines for the Courts to consider exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.PC, to quash the criminal proceedings. One such ground is where the 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.

¶55

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:665 WP No. 23474 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

On consideration of the materials on record, I am of

¶60

the opinion that the case in hand squarely falls under sub-para (7) of para 105 Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore, the criminal proceedings which is in abuse of process of law is liable to be quashed.

¶61

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.156/2020, pending on the file of the learned 4^th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC, is hereby quashed against the petitioner.

¶65

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶66

MKM CT:VS

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Mr Francis Clavier v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Francis Clavier v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K v Naidu Vs the State by

Mr. Ratish Kumar Moorthy Vs Smt. Mihika Chakraborty

Sanna Reddy Prasad Reddy Vs State of Karnataka by

Ameen Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Vijay Anand Vs State by Hsr Layout P.S

Mansoor M. K. Vs State by Madikeri Town P.S.