JOSVA P vs STATE BY SIDDAPURA P.S
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
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.310 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5275 OF 2024
IN CRL.P NO. 310/2024
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. K.KALYANA SUNDARAM,
S/O. M.KALYANA SUNDARAM,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE MANAGER
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
2. SRI. RAVI. K.R.
S/O. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
3. SRI. K.RATHNAVELU
S/O. KARUPPAIAH,
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
4.
SMT. REKHA
W/O. NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
5. SMT. MANJU. K. R.
W/O. VIJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
6.
SMT. REKHA
W/O. LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
7. SRI. CHANDRA BAHADUR. J
SON OF JAI BAHADUR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
8.
SRI. JOSEPH H
S/O. LATE SHANTHU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE
AT DUBARRY GROUP ESTATE,
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION,
MADIKERI TOWN CIRCLE,
KODAGU - 571 215,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. NATARAJAN. A
S/O. LATE AJJAGOUDAR. M,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
MANAGER,
DUBARE MUSKAL ESTATE,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
HOSURU VILLAGE,
POLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 215.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAVEED S., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.602/2021
(CR.NO.17/2021) INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, MADIKERI TOWN, PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S.324,504,506,149 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS.
IN CRL.P NO. 5275/2024
BETWEEN:
1. JOSVA P
S/O PALRAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
M A M RAMASWAMY
CHETTINAD CHARITABLE,
VIRAJPETE, KODAGU,
KARNATAKA.
2. NATARAJAN A
S/O LATE AJJA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT M A M RAMASWAMY CHETTINAD
OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU, KARNATAKA.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
3. KOLANDAVELU S V
S/O SEVUGAN CHETTIAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
M A M RAMASWAMY
CHETTINAD CHARITABLE,
VIRAJPETE, KODAGU,
KARNATAKA.
4. SURENDRA M R
S/O LATE RAGHAVA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
M A M RAMASWAMY
CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST,
POLIBETTA, KODAGU,
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY SIDDAPURA P.S.
REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560002.
2. LAKKANNA H L
S/O LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
DUBBARY COFFEE ESTATE,
POLLIBETTA VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571215.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAVEED S., HCGP FOR R-1)
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY RESPONDENT
POLICE IN CR.NO.16/2021 REGISTERED AS
C.C.NO.601/2021, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, VIRAJPET, KODAGU
DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 324, 504 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS I.E.,
ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
These two petitions arise out of the alleged incident dated
03.03.2021.
In Crl.P.No.310/2024
2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the
proceedings in C.C. No. 602/2021, arising out of Crime
No.17/2021 dated 03.03.2021, registered by Siddapura Police
Station against them for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1–Police on
03.03.2021, alleging that he was an employee of Chettinad
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
Dubare Estate and that, on 03.03.2021, at about 10:30 a.m.,
the petitioners trespassed into the estate and obstructed the
complainant and other employees from discharging their duties.
It was further alleged that accused No.1, namely, Lakkanna,
assaulted respondent No.2 with a wooden rod, while the other
petitioners abused him in filthy language and threatened him
with dire consequences, including threats to his life. Based on
the said complaint, respondent No.1–Police registered an FIR in
Crime No.17/2021 for the aforementioned offences. Upon
completion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet
against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, and the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
5. Apart from raising several other contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
complaint lodged against the petitioners is a counterblast to the
complaint lodged by them on 03.03.2021 against respondent
No.2 and others, which was registered in Crime No.16/2021.
He further contended that a dispute exists between the
employer and employees of Chettinad Dubare Estate and that a
civil suit in O.S.No.88/2021 is pending in respect of the same.
In such circumstances, it is contended that the impugned
complaint has been falsely lodged against the petitioners with a
view of giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. Learned
counsel further submitted that, even if the allegations made in
the complaint and the averments in the charge sheet are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against
the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. This prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and the learned HCGP, who jointly submit that the
investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has
been filed against the petitioners. They further contend that the
statements of CWs.2 to 4, who are stated to be eyewitnesses to
the incident, prima facie disclose the involvement of the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
petitioners in the alleged offences. They also submit that the
mere pendency of a civil suit does not, by itself, constitute a
ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, they
pray for dismissal of the petition.
In Crl.P.No.5275/2024
7. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the
proceedings in C.C.No.601/2021, arising out of Crime
No.16/2021 dated 03.03.2021, registered by Siddapura Police
Station against them for the offences punishable under
Sections 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
8. The factual matrix of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1–Police on
03.03.2021, alleging that when he was working in the coffee
estate belonged to Dubbary group along with the associates of
their bank. It is alleged that petitioners who are the members
of M.A.M. Ramaswami Chettinad Charitable Trust came near
the gate of the said coffee plantation and tried to break the lock
of the gate with wooden rod and respondent No.2 witnessed
the said act of the petitioners and questioned about the said
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
alleged illegal act of the petitioners then they started to abuse
respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 manhandled with him and
other petitioners threatened to kill respondent No.2. Based on
the said complaint, respondent No.1–Police registered an FIR in
Crime No.16/2021 for the aforementioned offences. Upon
completion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet
against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, and the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present
petition.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
10. Apart from raising several other contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that respondent
No.2 lodged the complaint against the petitioners only to
harass. He further contended that a dispute exists between the
employer and employees of Chettinad Dubare Estate and that a
civil suit in O.S.No.88/2021 is pending between the employees.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
In such circumstances, it is contended that the impugned
complaint has been falsely lodged against the petitioners with a
view to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. Learned counsel
further submitted that, even if the allegations made in the
complaint and the averments in the charge sheet are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against
the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
11. This prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and the learned HCGP, who jointly submit that the
investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has
been filed against the petitioners. They further contend that the
statements of CWs.2 to 9, who are stated to be eyewitnesses to
the incident, prima facie disclose the involvement of the
petitioners in the alleged offences. They also submit that the
mere pendency of a civil suit does not, by itself, constitute a
ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, they
pray for dismissal of the petition.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
12. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submissions and perused the entire materials available on
record.
13. As could be gathered from records deceased Lakkanna
lodged a complaint against Natarajan (respondent No.2 in
Criminal Petition No.310/2024) and others on 03.03.2021,
which was registered in Crime No.16/2021 for similar offences
pending in C.C.No.601/2021 and impugned in
Crl.P.No.5275/2024. Similarly, the said Natarajan lodged a
complaint against deceased Lakkanna (respondent No.2 in
Criminal Petition No.5275/2024) and others on 03.03.2021,
which was registered in Crime No.17/2021 for similar offences
pending in C.C.No.602/2021 and impugned in
Crl.P.No.310/2024. A perusal of the allegations in the said
complaints and the charge sheet materials disclose that the
parties picked up a quarrel with each other without any
apparent reason. However, apart from the general allegations
contained in the complaints and the statements of the alleged
eyewitnesses in both the cases, reiterating the same
allegations, no specific particulars explaining the circumstances
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
that led to the alleged incident are forthcoming. On a careful
scrutiny of the complaint averments and the statements of the
witnesses, this Court finds that the allegations are bald and
omnibus in nature, without any specific details regarding the
genesis of the incident.
14. Admittedly, civil disputes are pending between the parties
in relation to the employment of the workers of the estate in
O.S.Nos.88/2021 and 54/2018. In the aforesaid circumstances,
particularly in view of the pending civil disputes between the
parties and the lodging of rival complaints on the same date, it
appears that the criminal proceedings have arisen out of the
existing civil disputes, with an attempt to give a criminal colour
to the same. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of BIKKU BHAI GOVINDA BHAI VS. STATE OF
GUJARAT in SLP (Crl) No.15537/2023 dated 22.05.2026,
held in paragraph Nos.52 to 54 as under:
"52. The present case, viewed in its peculiar facts
and circumstances, constitutes all the characteristics of
a civil property dispute, which is sought to be converted
into criminal proceedings, after several years of civil
litigation. We are of the opinion that the criminal
process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of
harassment and coercion in disputes concerning title
over immovable property.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
53. We are conscious of the principles laid down
by this Court in the recent decision of Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (supra)
that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering at
the threshold stage of investigation. However , the said
judgment itself recognises that where the allegations do
not disclose the commission of cognizable offences or
where criminal proceedings manifestly amount to abuse
of process, the High Court is duty-bound to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
54. The present case falls squarely within the
well-settled categories warranting interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C as Page 28 delineated in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,12 namely, where the dispute
is predominantly civil in nature, where the allegations
fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences, where the criminal proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide intention, where there is
extraordinary and unexplained delay, and where
continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse
of process of court."
15. In the subsequent judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court , in
the case of Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. , reported in
(2023) 15 SCC 488 , at paragraph Nos.11 to 14, held as
under:
"11. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the
Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the court owes a
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely.
12. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not.
13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due
care and circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need
not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course
of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of
time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out
of private or personal grudge as alleged.
14. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of
A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can
assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine
distinction between consideration of materials that were
tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence.
Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the
accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an
FIR. The Court held : (Golconda Linga Swamy
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6
SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC p. 527, paras 5-
7)
“5. … Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power
to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the
process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of
it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing
of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint,
the court may examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the complainant
has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [R.P. Kapur v. State
of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] ,
this Court summarised some categories of cases where
inherent power can and should be exercised to quash
the proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where there
is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a
case where there is legal evidence which, on
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations.
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function
of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not
be an instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious
in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts
and circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a
private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any
person needlessly. At the same time the section is not
an instrument handed over to an accused to short-
circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. On collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am
of the considered view that since the case and counter case are
filed out of vengeance in connection with the civil disputes,
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in
both the cases would amount to abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal petitions are allowed .
ii. The proceedings in Crl.P.No.310/2024 against
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 9 in CC
No.602/2021, arising out of Crime No.17/2021
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58045
CRL.P No. 310 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 5275 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010009342024
dated 03.03.2021, filed by the Siddapura Police
Station, Madikeri Town, for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506
r/w 149 of IPC , pending on the file of Prl. Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Virajpet,
Kodagu Dist., are hereby quashed.
iii. The proceedings in Crl.P.No.5275/2024 against
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC
No.601/2021, arising out of Crime No.16/2021
dated 03.03.2021, filed by the Siddapura Police
Station, Madikeri Town, for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 504 r/w 149 of
IPC , pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Virajpet, Kodagu Dist., are hereby
quashed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10