SMT ASHWINI MAHADEV vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2171 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SMT ASHWINI MAHADEV
W/O R. RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
#15, SRI. ANJANEYA NILAYA,
MUNIAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 017
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. SRI.R. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O H. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#15, SRI ANJANEYA NILAYA,
MUNIAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 017
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. LOKESH ANJANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.266/2023 OF INDIRANAGAR POLICE
STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 341,
504 AND 324 OF IPC, ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION BE ALLOWED WITH COST THROUGHT
OUT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
accused No.1 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.266/2023
registered by the 1st respondent - police against the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504 and
324 of IPC.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is wife of
respondent no.2 and their marriage was solemnized on
12.05.2023. Thereafter, since the marital relation between
them was strained, the petitioner lodged a complaint against
respondent no.2 for the physical and mental harassment meted
out to her by him before the Jeevan Bheemanagar Police for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324 read
with Section 34 of IPC. When things stood thus, it is alleged

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



that on 20.10.2023 around 03:00 p.m., when respondent No.2
and his father were travelling in their car near 12th Main signal
of Indiranagara, the petitioner obstructed their vehicle and
opened the door and attempted to seize the key. At that time,
respondent No.2 sustained injuries to his left hand. As such, he
lodged a complaint before Indiranagar Police. On the strength
of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime
No.266/2023 for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner preferred this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that this complaint has been filed as a counter
blast to the complaint lodged by petitioner against respondent
no.2 for the physical and mental harassment meted out to her
by him. Further, he also contended that a similar false
complaint has been lodged by respondent no.2 on the previous
occasion before the Soraba Police Station. According to him,
although respondent no.2 is a gym instructor, it is he who
harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally. As such,
he submits that the complaint was filed out of wreaking

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



vengeance against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the petition.
5. There is no representation for respondent No.2.
6. On the other hand, learned HCGP opposed the said prayer
on the ground that the investigation is at the nascent stage and
the police are required to collect the materials against the
petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material
on record.
8. As could be gathered from record, admittedly, the
petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent no.2 for the
mental and physical harassment meted out to her by him and a
charge sheet has been filed against respondent No.2 in the said
case. Thereafter, the present complaint has been lodged by
respondent no.2. On perusal of the complaint averments, as
rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner,
allegedly the incident had occurred on 20.10.2023 in the
evening hours. However, the complaint was lodged on the next

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



day that is on 21.10.2023. The allegation in the complaint is
that the petitioner made an attempt to snatch the car key of
respondent No.2. That being the case, respondent no.2 ought
to have filed the complaint on the very same day. When there
is a case pending against respondent no.2, it could be gathered
that as a counter blast the present complaint has been lodged
by respondent no. 2 out of wreaking vengeance.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED ALI
AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UP - 2023 (15) SCC 488 in
paragraph No.11 to 14 held as under:
"11. The entire case put up by the first informant on the
face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this
stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this
Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters
are:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. (6) Where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned
Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a 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.” We are of the
view that the case of the present appellants
falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7
resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).
12. 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. We say so because
once the complainant decides to proceed against the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



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. 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 482 of the CrPC 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.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy ,
(2004) 6 SCC 522, 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:-
“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

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , AIR 1960
SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court
summarised some categories of cases where
inherent power can and should be exercised
to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, 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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



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)
14. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The
criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61102
CRL.P No. 2171 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010131392024



dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur,
Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed."
10. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court
to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that
the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 out of
wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. In such
circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of Court.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. The petition is allowed .

ii. The FIR in Crime No.266/2023
registered by the 1st respondent -
police against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections
506, 341, 504 and 324 of IPC is hereby
quashed.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE


PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28