KALAVATHI vs STATE BY BEGUR POLICE

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1162 OF 2024



BETWEEN:

1. KALAVATHI
W/O. GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT. NO.1461/D,
4TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS,
7TH SECTOR H.S.R LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.

2. RAVEESHA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT LAKSHMANAPURA VILLAGE,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 118.

3. SHIVAPPA
S/O VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAHUNDI VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 109.











Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. THUSHANATH C.V., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024




AND:

1.
STATE BY BEGUR POLICE
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. SMT. GANGAMBIKE
W/O BASAVANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAHUNDI VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 109.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.JAVEED S., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.MONISH C.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.218/2023 REGISTERED BY BEGUR
POLICE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT / RESPONDENT NO.1,
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 323, 326, 354(B), 504, 506, 379
R/W 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS OF PCR NO.26/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, GUNDLUPET,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime
No.218/2023 dated 15.11.2023 registered by Begur Police
Station (arising out of PCR No.26/2023), for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 354(B), 504,
506, 379 r/w 34 of IPC, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.)
and JMFC Court, Gundlupet, Chamarajanagara District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a private complaint before the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Gundlupete, in PCR No.26/2023, on 19.10.2023, against the
petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 324, 326, 354-B, 504, 506 and 379 r/w Section 34 of
IPC. The learned Magistrate, by the order dated 27.10.2023,
referred the said complaint to the jurisdictional Police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that, on 02.09.2023, when
respondent No.2 was proceeding towards her house along with

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



her cows, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 intercepted and picked up a
quarrel with her. They allegedly abused her in filthy language,
assaulted her near the left eye and inflicted a fist blow on her
nose. It is further alleged that they assaulted her on the back
with a cable pipe, pulled her saree and outraged her modesty.
As a result of the alleged assault, respondent No.2 sustained
injuries to her left hand. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 to 3
allegedly took away her cows. It is further averred in the
complaint that respondent No.2 initially obtained first aid at the
Primary Health Centre, Begur, and subsequently took treatment
at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. She allegedly approached the
jurisdictional Police to lodge a complaint; however, as the
Police did not register the case, she approached the
Superintendent of Police, Chamarajanagara, who also allegedly
declined to receive her complaint. Having been left with no
other remedy, respondent No.2 filed the aforesaid private
complaint before the learned Magistrate.
4. Upon presentation of the complaint, the learned
Magistrate referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by order dated

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



27.10.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order of reference and
registration of the FIR as stated supra , the petitioners have
approached this Court, seeking appropriate relief.
5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended
that respondent No.2 filed the private complaint without
complying with the mandatory requirements contemplated
under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ,
reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. Learned counsel submitted
that the private complaint was not accompanied by the
requisite affidavit affirming the averments made therein and
that respondent No.2 had failed to place on record any
endorsement or acknowledgment evidencing her alleged
attempts to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional Police
and the Superintendent of Police, prior to approaching the
learned Magistrate. It is therefore contended that the private
complaint, having been filed without complying with the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is liable to
be quashed. Learned counsel further contended that, on a
perusal of the averments made in the private complaint bald
and omnibus allegations are made, without specific particulars
regarding the manner in which the alleged incident occurred. It
is also submitted that the contents of the wound certificate are
contrary to the allegations made in the complaint and,
therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not
warrant continuation of the proceedings. Accordingly, learned
counsel for the petitioners prays that to allow the petition.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed
the petition, contending that non-filing of an affidavit along
with the private complaint is a curable defect, in view of the
recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.N.
Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Another , in SLP (Crl.)No.8626/2024 . Learned counsel
submitted that the defect can be cured before the learned
Magistrate passes any substantive order on the complaint. In
the present case, the learned Magistrate has not passed any
substantive order on the merits of the complaint but has

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



merely referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is
contended that the alleged non-compliance does not warrant
quashing of the proceedings at this stage. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 further contended that the allegations made in
the private complaint are supported by the wound certificate. It
is therefore submitted that the complaint discloses allegations
warranting Police investigation and that the proceedings cannot
be quashed at the threshold. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the petition.
8. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer and prays to
dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the materials on record.
10. As could be gathered from the records, the averments
made in the private complaint disclose that, on 02.09.2023, a
scuffle took place between the petitioners and respondent No.2,
during which the petitioners allegedly assaulted respondent
No.2, causing injuries to her. It is further averred that

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



respondent No.2 initially obtained first aid at the Primary Health
Centre, Begur, and was subsequently referred to K.R. Hospital,
Mysuru, for further treatment. It is also alleged that, after the
assault, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 took away the cows belonging to
respondent No.2. According to the private complaint,
respondent No.2 approached the jurisdictional Police to lodge a
complaint and, when they allegedly failed to register the case,
she approached the Superintendent of Police,
Chamarajanagara. As the complaint was allegedly not
registered even thereafter, she was constrained to approach
the learned Magistrate by filing a private complaint. On careful
scrutiny of the averments made in the private complaint, prima
facie allegations are forthcoming against the petitioners in
respect of the alleged commission of cognizable offences. No
doubt, the petitioners have questioned the maintainability of
the private complaint on the ground of non-compliance with the
requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Priyanka Srivastava stated supra . However, in the
subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Others , referred to supra , it has

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



been held that non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable
defect, which must be rectified before the learned Magistrate
passes any substantive order on the complaint or application.
11. In the instant case, after presentation of the private
complaint, the learned Magistrate has registered the same and
referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police for investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. No substantive order on the
merits of the complaint has been passed by the learned
Magistrate. In such circumstances, having regard to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
judgments, the alleged defect cannot, by itself, be a ground to
quash the impugned order at this stage.
12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioners have not made out sufficient grounds to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the
complaint for investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not
entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58046
CRL.P No. 1162 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010066402024



ORDER
i) The petition is dismissed .
ii). However, respondent No. 2 is at liberty
to cure the aforesaid defect by filing the
requisite affidavit before the learned
Magistrate. In the event of such affidavit being
filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the
same in accordance with law and proceed to
pass appropriate orders.
iii) However, liberty is reserved to the
petitioners to challenge the proceedings in
accordance with law, in the event of a charge
sheet being filed against them.
iv) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
been appointed by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. As such, Rs.10,000/- shall
be paid as his fees by the Authority.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE












GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12