LAKSHMIDEVI @ PALLAVI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024





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. 5304 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

1. LAKSHMIDEVI @ PALLAVI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O VIJAYKUMAR,
ARKESHWARANAGARA,
GUTTALU, MANDYA CITY
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

2. VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH,
ABBURUDODDI VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

3. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH,
ABBURUDODDI VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

4.
ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O RAMESH,
MUDDAGUPPE VILLAGE,











Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

5. SRINIVASA
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O KARIVENKATAIAH
THITTAMARNAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA TOWN POLICE
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REP BY HIGH COURT SPP
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. ARPITHA C J
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO.1914/313, 4TH CROSS,
MARALUHOLA CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. M.PARTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND FIR IN CR.NO.0108/2023
REGISTERED BY CHANNAPATNA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE COURT OF 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 506, 504,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



149, 448 AND 323 OF IPC, 1860, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS
DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2.
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 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime
No.108/2023 dated 13.09.2023 registered by Channapatna
Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections
427, 506, 504, 149, 448, 323 of IPC, on the file of I Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Channapatna, Ramanagara
District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
13.09.2023, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with
one Dr. T.M.Honne Gowda on 26.11.2020 at Rathna Mahal,
Channapatna Town, Ramanagara District. After the marriage,
respondent No.2 started residing at her matrimonial home, and
the marital relationship was cordial for a few months. However,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between respondent
No.2 and her husband, pursuant to which she started residing
separately since September 2022. Though she made an
attempt to rejoin her husband, the same did not yield any
fruitful result. In the meanwhile, her husband instituted a
petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-
a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further alleged that
on 13.09.2023, at about 5:00 p.m., when respondent No.2 was
present in her house along with her parents, the accused-
petitioners herein entered the house on the pretext of holding a
panchayath, abused her in filthy language and foisted life
threats. In this regard, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint,
which came to be registered in Crime No.108/2023 for the
aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police
conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against all
the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the alleged offences. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners preferred the present petition.

3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the complaint has been falsely lodged against

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



the petitioners as a counterblast to the divorce petition
instituted by the husband of respondent No.2. According to
him, no such incident had taken place on 13.09.2023. He
further submits that petitioner No.1, who is the sister-in-law of
respondent No.2, had also lodged a complaint against
respondent No.2 and her parents on the very same day,
alleging that respondent No.2 had invited the petitioners to her
house on the pretext of settlement and had assaulted them.
The said complaint came to be registered in Crime
No.109/2023 dated 14.09.2023, and the Police have
subsequently filed a charge sheet against respondent No.2 and
her family members in the said case. Such being the position,
the learned counsel contends that based on bald and omnibus
allegations, without any specific overt acts being attributed to
the petitioners. He further submits that respondent No.2 and
her husband were residing together and that the petitioners
had no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident. Hence,
they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the
prayer contending that the charge sheet has already been filed
and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course
of investigation clearly disclose the involvement of the
petitioners in the alleged offences. Hence, he submits that the
matter requires consideration during trial and does not warrant
interference at this stage. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

petition.

5. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer on the similar
ground and submits that there are eye-witness to the incident
and prays to dismiss the petition.

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

7. As could be gathered from the charge sheet materials,
the relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is
not in dispute. The petitioners are the in-laws of respondent
No.2, and initially, there were matrimonial disputes between
respondent No.2 and her husband, Dr. T.M. Honne Gowda.
However, admittedly, they are presently residing together. The

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



complaint averments disclose that the petitioners visited the
parental house of respondent No.2 on 13.09.2023 and picked
up a quarrel with respondent No.2 and her parents. It is also
not in dispute that petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint
against respondent No.2 and her parents in respect of the very
same incident, and the Police have also filed a charge sheet in
the said case. On perusal of the complaint averments and the
statements of the witnesses, except for certain bald and
omnibus allegations, no specific allegations are forthcoming
against the petitioners. More particularly, the complaint and the
statements of the witnesses do not disclose any specific reason
or motive for the petitioners to visit the parental house of
respondent No.2 and allegedly indulge in such acts. When
respondent No.2 and her husband are presently residing
together cordially, prima facie , no apparent reason is
forthcoming for the petitioners to visit her parental house and
allegedly assault her or create a ruckus. In the absence of
specific allegations and having regard to the pendency of the
case and counter-case arising out of the same incident, the
circumstances prima facie indicate that the present complaint

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



may have been lodged out of vengeance in connection with the
matrimonial dispute. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex
Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
Court, in , 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
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

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



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
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;

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



(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)

8. On collocating the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am
of the considered view that this complaint has been lodged by
respondent No.2 out of vengeance. As such, continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of
process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59571
CRL.P No. 5304 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010313322024



ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .
ii. The FIR registered against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime
No.108/2023 dated 13.09.2023 by
Channapatna Town Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 427, 506,
504, 149, 448, 323 of IPC, on the file of I
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Channapatna, Ramanagara District is hereby
quashed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE











GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2