SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA G M vs STATE BY M.K. DODDI POLICE STATION

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3784 OF 2022


BETWEEN:

1. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA G.M.
S/O MANCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE
KUDURU POLICE STATION
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561101.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE BY M.K. DODDI POLICE STATION
CHANNAPATNA RURAL CIRCLE
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.

2. SRI. VENKATESHA S/O KARIYAPPA, MAJOR
R/AT KOLURU VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160.

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.09.2023)
…RESPONDENTS








Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022



THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AT
ANNEXURE-A AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO.66/2020 OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 504, 323, 324,
448, 506, 114, 149 IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CC 162/2022 REGISTERED ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-C.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
2. The prayer is sought for quashing the charge sheet
as against the petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused
No.5 in Crime No.66/2020 of M.K. Doddi Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 448,
506, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that having perused the contents of complaint, only statement

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022


is made that this incident has taken place at the instigation of
accused No.5, but nothing is stated that he was very much
present at the time of incident. The counsel also brought to
notice of this Court that Annexure-D is very clear that on the
very same day on 29.04.2020 at 08.00 a.m., work was
entrusted to this petitioner to go for beat of the villages
Huluvadi, Mankunda, Hosurudoddi, Devarahalli and
Valagerehalli and was entrusted with gastu duty of the said
villages. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
brought to notice of this Court that prosecution mainly relies
upon Station House Diary, wherein it is stated that when the
complainant went to police station at 9.00 a.m., he made them
to sit near lock-up and on enquiry, came to know that through
two PCs that he made them to sit there. The counsel would
submit that when the offence under Section 114 of IPC is
invoked against this petitioner, he must be very much present
at the time of the incident.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon order
passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1294/2020 dated 25.05.2023
and brought to notice of this Court discussion made by this

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022


Court in paragraph No.10, in order to invoke Section 114 of
IPC, abettor present when offence is committed. Hence,
question of invoking Section 114 of IPC does not arise.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2-complainant also submit that there is a
dispute between the complainant’s family and the accused
family and even civil dispute had reached to this Court as per
Annexure-R i.e., R.S.A.No.432/2013, wherein the RSA was
allowed modifying the judgment of the Trial Court and set aside
the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.100/2007 and also
R.A.No.75/2012 and partly decreed to the extent that plaintiff
is entitled for an order of injunction to safeguard the western
wall of her house. The counsel also would submit that this
incident is at the instance of the present petitioner and though
offence under Section 114 of IPC was invoked and he was not
present at the time of incident, but the Court has to take note
of the fact that incident has occurred at the instigation of this
petitioner itself.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for respondent No.1-State would submit that the police based

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022


on the complaint registered the case, investigated the matter
and filed the charge sheet based on the statement of
witnesses.
7. Having heard counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and also
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State, the other offences invoked against this petitioner i.e.,
Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 448, 506, 114 read with Section
149 of IPC will not attract and the offence that could be taken
note of is Section 114 of IPC. Even in respect of Section 114 of
IPC also, none of the complainant witnesses and also the
contents of the complaint discloses the very presence of this
petitioner and only an word is used in the complaint that this
petitioner is working as P.C. in the very same police station and
he is responsible for the said act. Though the witnesses speak
that about the same that only at the instigation of this
petitioner, the incident has happened and he is responsible for
the said incident, but when he was not present at the place of
incident and the offence under Section 114 of IPC also cannot
be invoked against this petitioner. This Court already dealt with

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022


the issue with regard to presence of the very accused by
invoking Section 114 of IPC in the criminal petition referred
supra by counsel petitioner appearing for the petitioner.
8. When such being the case, none of the ingredients
of the offence under Section 114 attracts against this petitioner
and merely because adding the word that he is responsible for
this incident, he cannot be prosecuted, that too, in a criminal
prosecution and he need not face the criminal ordinal because
he is working in the very same police station. No doubt, counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2-complainant and also
counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court that
there was reference in the Station House Diary that he was
very much present at 9.00 a.m. on the date of the incident and
he made them to sit near lock up and the same cannot be a
ground to implicate him as an accused. Hence, there is a force
in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
ingredients of Section 114 of IPC not attracts against this
petitioner.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59545
CRL.P No. 3784 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010184802022


ORDER

allowed.
(i) The criminal petition is

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner,
who is accused No.5 in Crime No.66/2020 of M.K.
Doddi Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 448, 506, 114
read with Section 149 of IPC, is hereby quashed.



Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46