SMT.J INDU vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4661 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

SMT. J.INDU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O MANJUNATH,
R/AT NO.229, 3RD CROSS,
OLD POLICE STATION OPPOSITE
TYAGARAJANAGR,
BENGALURU 560070
(ADVOCATE
HAVING OFFICE AT ABOVE ADDRESS
…PETITIONER










(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MICO LAYOUT POLICE,
BENGALURU
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU 560 001.

2. PANKAJ JAIN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O K.S.JAIN
R/AT 27, 16TH MAIN,
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



5TH B CROSS,
IAS OFFICERS COLONY,
BTM 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 069.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESHA P., HCGP F0R R-1;
MUTHURAJU A., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.28612/2023
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427 AND 448 R/W 34 OF IPC
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.
CMM AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.28612/2023, arising out of Crime No.81/2023 dated
04.04.2023, registered by the Mico Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru City, against the petitioner and accused No.1 for the
offences punishable under Sections 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC
pending on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
04.04.2023, alleging that he had taken on rent a house
belonging to the husband of the petitioner i.e., accused No.1,
namely, Manjunatha, under a tenancy agreement dated
01.07.2021, at a monthly rent of Rs.23,100/-, by paying a
deposit of Rs.1,45,000/-. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was
running his office in the said premises.

3. It is further alleged that on 03.01.2023, the BESCOM
authorities disconnected the electricity supply to the premises,
which was brought to the notice of the petitioner and her
husband-accused No.1. However, both of them allegedly
abused respondent No.2 in filthy language. It is further alleged
that the accused No.1 failed to restore the electricity supply, on
account of which respondent No.2 suffered loss in his business.
The further allegation is that on 26.03.2023, at about 10:30
a.m., the petitioner and accused No.1 trespassed into the said
rented premises by breaking open the lock and cut the internet
and telephone wires. They also allegedly damaged the furniture
and the UPS and telephone board. Subsequently, they dumped

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



the said articles in front of the house of one Indumathi, CW-4.
The articles were later recovered by the Police from the house
of respondent No.2. As such, respondent No.2 lodged the
complaint before respondent No.1-Police. On the basis of the
said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.81/2023
dated 04.04.2023 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently,
respondent No.1-Police conducted investigation and filed the
charge sheet against the petitioner and her husband, arraying
them as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, for the offences
punishable under Sections 427 and 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
The offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC was dropped
on the ground that the allegations constituting the said offence
were not substantiated during the investigation. Accordingly,
the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid
offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred
the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



5. Apart from urging several other contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the dispute
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is purely civil in
nature, arising out of the landlord-tenant relationship, and that,
in order to give a criminal colour to the said dispute, a false
case has been foisted against the petitioner. He submits that,
after investigation, respondent No.1-Police dropped the offence
punishable under Section 379 of IPC and filed the charge sheet
only for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 448
r/w Section 34 of IPC. He further contended that the offence
punishable under Section 448 of IPC is not attracted against
the petitioner, particularly when her husband, who is arrayed
as accused No.1, is the owner of the premises.

6. It is further submitted that the offence punishable under
Section 427 of IPC is also not attracted, as the allegations in
the complaint and charge sheet are that the petitioner and her
husband trespassed into the premises occupied by respondent
No.2, damaged the office equipment and subsequently dumped
the same in front of the house of CW-4. However, during the
course of investigation, the Police conducted a mahazar in front

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



of the house of CW-4, wherein no such articles were found.
Ultimately, the said articles were allegedly recovered from the
house of respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC
are also not made out. Learned counsel further contends that
respondent No.2 was a defaulter in payment of rent and,
therefore, the petitioner insisted that him to vacate the
premises. Instead of vacating the premises, respondent No.2
has allegedly lodged a false complaint against the petitioner
and her husband. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed
the petition on the ground that the charge sheet has already
been filed and the statements of the witnesses disclose the
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. He further
contends that the petitioner and her husband illegally
trespassed into the premises occupied by respondent No.2 and
ransacked the same, and that the articles removed from the
premises were dumped in the house of CW-4. Subsequently,
respondent No.2 shifted the said articles back to his premises
and handed them over to the Police. Placing reliance on the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



photographs produced before the Court, learned counsel
submits that the same clearly demonstrate the involvement of
the petitioner in the alleged incident. Accordingly, he prays to

dismiss the petition.

8. The learned HCGP also opposed the prayer on similar
grounds and prays to dismiss the petition.

9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the entire charge sheet materials.
[

10. As could be gathered from the records, admittedly, the
landlord-tenant relationship between the husband of the
petitioner and respondent No.2 is not in dispute. It is also not
in dispute that respondent No.2 had failed to pay the electricity
bill to BESCOM, pursuant to which the authorities issued a
notice in that regard. It is in this background that the present
complaint came to be lodged. It is pertinent to note that there
is an inordinate delay of eight days in lodging the complaint.
The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on
26.03.2023, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only on
04.04.2023. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming either in

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



the complaint or in the charge sheet materials for the said
delay. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the husband of the petitioner being the owner of the
premises, the mere fact that the petitioner and her husband
visited the premises would not, by itself, constitute criminal
trespass. In the absence of material to establish the requisite
ingredients of criminal trespass, the offence punishable under
Section 448 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioner.

11. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 427 of
IPC is concerned, a perusal of the mahazar dated 06.04.2023
discloses that no such articles were recovered from the house
of CW-4. It is the specific case of respondent No.2 that the
petitioner and her husband entered the premises, ransacked
the same and thereafter shifted the articles to the house of
CW-4. However, the mahazar drawn at the said place does not
support the alleged recovery. On the contrary, respondent No.2
subsequently produced certain articles before the Police, which
came to be seized during the course of investigation. In such
circumstances, the charge sheet materials do not disclose any
reliable material to prima facie establish that the petitioner had

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



trespassed into the premises and damaged or ransacked the
office equipment, as alleged.

12. On overall consideration of the entire charge sheet
materials, it appears that the complaint has arisen out of the
existing landlord-tenant dispute, coupled with the dispute
relating to non-payment of electricity bills. In the
circumstances, the possibility of respondent No.2 initiating the
criminal proceedings out of vengeance cannot be ruled out. In
Mahmood Ali
such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
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
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

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



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 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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



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 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)

13. On collocating the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court with the facts and circumstances of the present case, I

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59570
CRL.P No. 4661 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010281392024



am of the considered view that the complaint against this
petitioner/accused No.2 has been lodged by respondent No.2
out of vengeance. As such, the continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioner/accused No.2 is nothing but abuse of
process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.28612/2023,
arising out of Crime No.81/2023 dated
04.04.2023, registered by the Mico Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 427, 448 r/w 34 of
IPC, pending on the file of VI ACMM,
Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE







GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1