SRI R SURESH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10478 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 23031 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24264 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 10478/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI R SURESH,
S/O N. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 33/5-1, PAYAPA GARDEN,
BEHIND SANJEEVINI PRESS,
TASKER TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH,
HKP ROAD, BENGALURU 560 051.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASURU POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. SRI NANJUNDA,
S/O LINGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
R/AT NO. 130, 2ND CROSS,
2ND STAGE, NEAR ANJENEYA TEMPLE,
TYAGARAJNAGAR, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA,
[email protected],
MOB: 9353782267.
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY
ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560001.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU EAST, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 051.
5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
HALASUR SUB DIVISION,
HALASURU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU 560 008.
6. WOMAN POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
HALASURU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU 560 008.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1, R-3 TO R-6;
SRI KARTHIK KUMAR.S, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH UNDER SECTION
528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 0060/2026 DATED 11.02.2026
AT ANNEXURE-A REGISTERED BY HALASURU PO POLICE
STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
109(1) AND 352 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023,
PENDING BEFORE THE XTH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
IN WP NO. 23031/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI NANJUNDA,
S/O LINGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.130, 2ND CROSS,
2ND STAGE, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
TYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU 560028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KARTIK KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASURU POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. SMT. SONIA,
W/O SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO. 33/5-1, PAYAPPA GARDEN,
TASKER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560051.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH UNDER
SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 12.02.2026
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0063/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) BY
HALASURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 126(2), 351(2)
AND 352 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023,
TOGETHER WITH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
THEREFROM, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED
AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 24264/2026
BETWEEN:
MANOJ K,
S/O KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NO. 130, 2ND CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA
BLOCK, THYAGARAJA NAGAR,
VTC: BANGALORE SOUTH,
PO: TYAGRAJNAGAR, BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA 560028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KARTIK KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASURU POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.
2. SMT. SONIA,
W/O SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO. 33/5-1, PAYAPPA GARDEN,
TASKER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560051.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH UNDER
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, MORE
PARTICULARLY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED
12.02.2026 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0063/2026
(ANNEXURE- A) BY HALASURU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 126(2), 351(2) AND 352 OF THE
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, TOGETHER WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM,
INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner – accused in W.P.No.10478/2026, is before this
Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime
No.60/2026, for the offences under Sections 109(1) and 352 of
the BNS and the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 in
W.P.Nos.23031/2026 and 24264/2026, respectively, are before
this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in
Crime No.63/2026, for the offences under Sections 126(2),
351(2) and 352 of the BNS. Both the crimes are pending
before the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
City.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
2. Heard Sri Shathabish Shivanna, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.No.10478/2026 and respondent No.2 in
W.P.Nos.23031/2026 and 24264/2026, Sri Karthik Kumar S.,
learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.23031/2026 and
24264/2026 and respondent No.2 in W.P.No.10478/2026 and
Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 – State in all the petitions.
3. All these petitions call in question crimes arising out of
a solitary incident. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining
in W.P.No.10478/2026 would be considered.
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner is the sole accused. Respondent No.2 is
the complainant. A crime in Crime No.60/2026 comes to be
registered on 11.02.2026 on the basis of a complaint registered
by respondent No.2 – complainant. The complainant was
employed as a driver and is additionally engaged in the
business of purchase and sale of flowers. The allegation in the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
complaint is that, on 11.02.2026, after procuring flowers from
Hoskote, when the complainant and his nephew Manoj were
returning in the goods vehicle, which was driven by Manoj,
between 12:30 p.m. to 01:30 p.m., when the vehicle was
passing through Trinity junction and attempting to turn towards
K.S.Thimmaiah Road, the complainant notices a Maruti Ertiga
car travelling behind them and allegedly honking continuously.
It is the further allegation that the said car moved towards the
right side of the goods vehicle of the complainant and the
person driving the car abused the complainant and his nephew
filthily. Thereafter, the nephew of the complainant, who was
driving the goods vehicle followed the said car and compelled
the driver to stop the car, in order to inquire as to why the
driver of the car abused them filthily. The complainant gets
down from the goods vehicle, approaches the car and demands
that the driver to pull over the car to the side of the road.
Later, the driver i.e., the petitioner did not stop but moved the
car forward, whereupon the complainant positioned himself in
front of the car to obstruct its movement but the vehicle
continued to move. This lead the complainant to jump onto the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
bonnet of the car and hold on to the wipers. Even then, the car
did not stop and was driven to the vicinity of one college. After
sometime, the car was brought to a halt near the college.
5. It is said that the incident is viewed by several and it is
circulated in the social media. The police did not act
immediately, but when the video got circulated in the social
media, then the police on the basis of the said circulation went
on to register the impugned crime in Crime No.60/2026 for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 352 of the BNS,
which were Sections 307 and 504 of the IPC, the earlier
regime.
6. On the afore-narrated incident, another crime comes
to be registered in Crime No.63/2026, registered by the wife of
the driver of the alleged car, for the offences under Sections
126(2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS, which were Sections 341, 506
and 504 of the IPC, the earlier regime. This crime is challenged
in the companion petitions – W.P.Nos.23031/2026 and
24264/2026. Therefore, this becomes a case and a counter
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
case. The registration of the crimes against one another have
driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.
7. Sri Shathabish Shivanna, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.No.10478/2026 would vehemently contend
that there was no problem till the issue was circulated on social
media. Even otherwise, from where the complainant jumps on
the bonnet of the car is a mystery. The police did see, but did
not react on the score that the squabble was between two
people and assuming that the squabble has settled by two of
them by talking to each other. Learned counsel submits that
there is not an iota of the ingredients of Section 109(1) of the
BNS, in a trivial case of this kind. There is no bodily injury or
otherwise.
8. Sri Kartik Kumar S., learned counsel for respondent
No.2 - complainant in W.P.No.10478/2026 would submit that
the complainant would have suffered great bodily injuries if the
petitioner did not stop the car. The crime was registered since
the petitioner has filthily abused against the complainant.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
9. Both the learned counsel would submit that the
incident has resulted in a case and a counter case and would
leave the decision to the Court.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the material on record.
11. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record.
There are two complainants in the case, one filed by the
petitioner and another against the petitioner, but the parties
are the same. In the crime registered by the complainant –
Nanjunda in Crime No.60/2026, the complaint reads as follows:
“ರವ ೆ,
- ,
ೕ ಸ ಇ ೆ
ಹಲಸೂರು ೕ ಾೆ
ಹಲಸೂರು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
ಇಂದ,
36 ,
ನಂಜುಂಡ $ ಂಗ%ಾಜು ವಷ'
: 130, 2 , 2 ,
(ಾಸ ನಂ )ೇ *ಾ+ )ೇ ಹಂತ
,
ಆಂಜ)ೇಯ /ೇವ0ಾ1ನದ ಹ23ರ
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
, - 70 ,
4ಾ5ಗ%ಾಜ ನಗರ ೆಂಗಳ ರು
. . 9353782267
,
:
>ಷಯ ನನ? *ೊ@ೆ ೆ ಪ+ಯ2?Bರುವ ಸು%ೇC ಎಂ ಾತನ >ರುದE ದೂರು.
)ಾನು ಈ HಲIಂಡ >Jಾಸದ K ನನ? ಕುಟಂಬ/ೊಂO ೆ (ಾಸ(ಾPದುQ )ಾನು
RೆS>ಂT ೆಲಸ UಾVೊಂVದುQ Wಾಗೂ ಹೂ>ನ (ಾ5Xಾರ ಕೂಡ
: 11-02-2026
UಾV*ೊಂVರು4ೆ3ೕ)ೆ YPರು(ಾ ೆ O)ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಮYಂದ+
. : KA-05-AR-5402
ಕಂಪ[ಯ ನನ? ಸ\ಂತ ಗೂ]^ (ಾಹನ(ಾದ )ೊಂ ಸಂ ರ K
Wೊಸೋ_ೆ `ಂದ ಹೂಗಳನು? ಖ OBೊಂಡು )ಾನು ಮತು3 ನನ? ಅಕIನ ಮಗ
ಮ)ೋc *ೆ ಇಬdರು ಬರುವ ಸಮಯದ K ಮ)ೋc (ಾಹನವನು? ಚ@ಾ`ಸು23ದುQ
. 12-30 01-00
)ಾನು ಪಕIದ K ಕುf2ರು4ೆ3ೕ)ೆ Yೕ ೆ ಸುUಾರು ಂದ ಗಂ_ೆಯ
,
ಸಮಯದ K g+[g ಜಂ [ಂದ Xಾ0ಾP ನಂತರ ಇಂVೇಟ Wಾhೊಂಡು *ೈ
.
ಸ)ೆ? UಾVೊಂಡು ಜನರj ೆ ಎ 2ಮkಯ5 ರ0ೆ3 ಕRೆ ೆ Bಗ?j
XL-6
/ಾಟು23ರು(ಾಗ ನಮk Yಂ/ೆ)ೇ ಇದQ Uಾರು2 ಎಂg ಾ (ಾಹನ
. : KA-03-NN-4501
)ೊಂ ಸಂ (ಾಹನದ lಾಲಕನು Yಂ/ೆ`ಂದ mೋ%ಾP
Wಾ ' Uಾಡು23ದುQ ಇ )ಾವn ಬಲ*ೆI Wೋಗು23/ೆQ(ೆ ಎಂದು WೇfದುQ ನಮk
ಾVಯ ಎಡoಾಗೆI ಬಂದು ಸದ lಾಲಕನು ಾ ನ K ಕುfತು*ೊಂಡು ಸೂJೆ
.
ಮಗ)ೆ ಎಂದು ೈOರು4ಾ3)ೆ ಅದನು? *ೇಳಲು Wೋ/ಾಗ (ಾಹನವನು? [ Kಸ/ೆ
. . . .
ಮುಂ/ೆ WೋPರು4ಾ3)ೆ ನಂತರ Wೆp ಎ ಎj ಏ ೕr' ರ0ೆ3ಯ B $
,
%ೋ] Bಗ?j ಬf Bಗ?j $OQರುವ *ಾರಣ (ಾಹನವನು? [ KBದುQ )ಾನು ನಮk
(ಾಹನOಂದ ೆಳ ೆ ಇfದು ಸದ ವ5h3ಯ (ಾಹನದ ಬf WೋP tಾೇ
ಅವಚ5(ಾP ೈ/ೆ ಎಂದು ೇf (ಾಹನವನು? ಪಕIೆI Wಾh ಎಂದು WೇfದುQ ಸದ
(ಾಹನವನು? ಓVಸು23ದQ ವ5h3ಯು ತನ? (ಾಹನವನು? 0ಾkr' UಾV ಅ Kಂದ
Wೋಗಲು ಪ+ಯ2?BದುQ (ಾಹನವನು? [ ಸುವಂ4ೆ )ಾನು (ಾಹನದ ಾ5)ೆr
ಹ23ರ ಬಂದು [ಂ2ರು4ೆ3ೕ)ೆ ನನ?ನು? ಉ/ೆQೕಶOಂದ (ಾಹನವನು? ಮುಂದ*ೆI
ಚ@ಾ`BದುQ )ಾನು Xಾ+ಣ ಭಯOಂದ ಸದ (ಾಹನದ Hೕ@ೆ $ದುQ
(ಾಹನದ (ೈಪ ಗಳನು? YVದು*ೊಂVರು4ೆ3ೕ)ೆ £Á£ÀÄ JµÉÖ eÉÆÃgÀV
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
(ಾಹನವನು? [ Kಸುವಂ4ೆ ಕೂPೊಂಡರು [ Kಸ/ೆ ನನ?ನು? ೊ@ೆ Uಾಡುವ
, . .
eÉÆÃgÀV
ಉ/ೆQೕಶOಂದ@ೇ (ಾಹನವನು? ಓVಸು4ಾ3 B $ ಜಂ Bಗ?j `ಂದ
. . M
ಎ ಎ B 0ೆಂಟ ಾ@ೇc ವರಸು VBೊಂಡು WೋPದುQ ರ0ೆ3 ಯ KದQ
,
0ಾವ'ಜ[ಕರು (ಾಹನ [ Kಸುವಂ4ೆ Wೇfದರು [ KBರುವnOಲK ನಂತರ
. .
J ಎ B 0ೆಂಟ ಾ@ೇc ಹ23ರ PÁå * (ಾಹನಗಳy ಮತು3 O\ z PÀæ (ಾಹನಗಳy
,
ಅಡ{ಗg| [ಂ4ಾಗ ¸ÀzÀj ವ5h3ಯು (ಾಹನವನು? [ Bರು4ಾ3)ೆ ನಂತರ ಸ1ಳದ Kಂದ
.
0ಾವ'ಜ[ಕರು ಆತನ Wೆಸರನು? *ೇಳ@ಾP ಸು%ೇC ಎಂದು Wೇfರು4ಾ3)ೆ
ಆದQ ಂದ ನನ ೆ ಅ(ಾಚ5 ಶಬQಗfಂದ [ಂOB *ೊ@ೆ ೆ ಪ+ಯ2?Bರುವ ಸು%ೇಶ
ಎಂ ಾತನ >ರುದE ಸೂಕ3 *ಾನೂನು ಕ+ಮ ಜರುPಸುವಂ4ೆ ತಮk
.
ೇfೊಳy}4ೆ3ೕ)ೆ
.”
ತಮk >~ಾ\B
11.1. The complaint registered by Sonia, the wife of the
driver of the car, in Crime No.63/2026 reads as follows:
“To,
The Inspector,
Halasuru Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Respected Sir,
I, Sonia Suresh, hereby lodge a formal complaint
regarding a serious incident that occurred on 11/02/2026
between 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM while my husband and I
were travelling to attend al function in Bengaluru. During
our journey, a goods vehicle consisting of two persons
suddenly attempted to cut across from the left side of the
road to the right side in a reckless and dangerous
manner, almost ramming into our vehicle. This act could
have resulted in a major accident and posed a serious
threat to our lives.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
Following this, my husband chose not to escalate the
situation and continued driving to avoid confrontation.
After a while, we could see the goods vehicle began
following us aggressively. One of the men blocked the
way and got on the bonnet of the car restraining us. Next
he tried to vigorously open the car and restraint and
began banging on the door also hurling abuses in an
aggressive manner. Shortly thereafter, the second person
also got down from the vehicle and joined him. I
immediately dialled the police helpline number and the
police arrived there in 10 minutes. Both of them
continued to abuse us, and telling us to get out of the car,
behaved violently, and threatened to kill us if we step out.
Fearing for our safety, my husband attempted to drive
away to avoid further danger and to look for a nearby
police officer. During this time, one of the men held onto
the bonnet of our car and continued his violent and
threatening behaviour, clearly intent on causing harm.
Subsequently, the police arrived at the spot in and we
were escorted to the Halasuru Police Station. The police
have been briefed about the incident and have the vehicle
registration number and other particulars of the accused
persons. We later found out that the names of the
accused persons are Nanjunda and Manoj. Considering
the seriousness of the incident, including reckless driving,
criminal intimidation, and threat to life, I request you to
kindly take strict and appropriate legal action against the
accused persons to ensure our safety and to prevent such
dangerous incidents in the future.
I am willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and
provide any further information required.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
Sonia Suresh”
A perusal at the complaints so registered, one by the
complainant and one against the complainant, would indicate
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
that the incident is undoubtedly an instance of road rage.
Though road rage is an unpardonable act by the accused,
against the victim, the ingredients of the offences alleged are
not met in the cases at hand.
12. The Apex Court in the case of ANITA MAURYA v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 1519 , observes that criminal law cannot be set into motion
to wreak vengeance and holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
16. The power is undoubtedly to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and never to
throttle a legitimate prosecution or to conduct a
mini trial at the threshold. These self-imposed
restraints, however, do not require the court to
shut its eyes to a proceeding that is a manifest
abuse. Where mala fide or an oblique motive is
alleged, the court is not confined to the four corners
2
of the complaint. In Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. ,
this Court held that in such a situation the court
owes a duty to examine the complaint with care
and a little more closely, and, where necessary, to
read in between the lines.
17. The same principle was reiterated in
3
Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. , where it was
observed:
“30. At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking either
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
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 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.”
( emphasis supplied )
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
…. …. ….
25. The High Court confined itself to the bare
averments of the complaint and treated the
material placed by the appellants as raising only
disputed questions of fact for trial. Where,
indicia
however, the of mala fide and abuse of
process appear on the record, the court is not
merely entitled but obliged to look beyond the
averments and to prevent the perpetuation of the
abuse. Taking the cumulative effect of the unexplained
delay, the suppression of the antecedent FIR, the
counter-blast character of the complaint and the
essentially civil nature of the dispute, we are of the
considered view that the case falls squarely within
categories (1), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal Case (supra),
and that the continuation of the complaint against the
appellants would be nothing but an abuse of the process
of the court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that a Court exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot remain
oblivious to the attendant circumstances that precede,
accompany and culminate in the registration of a crime. In the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the peculiar facts
obtaining in the cases at hand, the petitions deserve to succeed
with obliteration of the crimes.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:41645
WP No. 10478 of 2026
C/W WP No. 23031 of 2026
WP No. 24264 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230402026
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. Writ petitions are allowed.
b. The impugned crimes in Crime No.60/2026, in
W.P.No.10478/2026 and Crime No.63/2026 in
W.P.Nos.23031/2026 and 24264/2026, both pending
before the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru City, stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 63