YAMINI MUNIRAJ vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
Reserved on : 02.09.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10043 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10247 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6202 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7699 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8316 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11620 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 475 OF 2026
IN CRL.P No. 10043/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VARUN SAI SRIDHAR
S/O SRIDHAR RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3314,
TH ND
13 MAIN ROAD, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 008.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
2.
SMT.ASHWINI
W/O VARUN SAI SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3314,
TH ND
13 MAIN ROAD, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 008.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
CUBBON PARK,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT. YAMINI MUNIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3314,
TH ND
13 MAIN ROAD, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 008.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CR.NO.229/2023 OF THE INDIRANAGAR POLICE
STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.504, 509 OF IPC
- 3 -
R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE X
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU
AS AGAINST THEM.
IN CRL.P NO. 10247/2023
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAIAH MUNIRAJU
S/O B.M.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. NALINI MUNIRAJ
W/O MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. YAMINI MUNIRAJ
D/O MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
4. DARSHANA MUNIRAJ
S/O MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ALL ARE
RESIDING AT NO.10/3
BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA
TH ST
13 MAIN, 1 CROSS
NEAR BODY CRAFT
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU NORTH
HAL II STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU
- 4 -
KARNATAKA – 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 01.
2. ASHWINI B.,
W/O VARUN SAI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3314
TH TH
7 CROSS, 13 MAIN
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU – 572 218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.231/2023 OF THE INDIRANAGAR
POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO
HALL, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 506,
341, 504, 149 OF IPC.
- 5 -
IN CRL.P NO. 6202/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VARUN SAI SRIDHAR
S/O SRIDHAR RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3314,
TH TH
13 MAIN, 7 CROSS, HAL II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. YAMINI MUNIRAJU
D/O MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
ST
RESIDING AT: 10/3, 1 CROSS,
TH ND
13 MAIN, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
- 6 -
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNNS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.73/2025 OF INDIRANAGAR
TH
POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF 10 ADDL.CMM COURT,
MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, REGISTERED FOR THE O/P/U/S
74, 75, 76 AND 126(2) OF THE BNS, 2023.
IN CRL.P NO. 7699/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VARUN SAI SRIDHAR
S/O SRIDHAR RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT NO.3314, 13 MAIN,
TH
7 CROSS, HAL II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. YAMINI MUNIRAJU,
D/O MUNIRAJU, MAJOR,
ST
RESIDING AT: 10/3, 1 CROSS,
TH ND
13 MAIN, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
- 7 -
BENGALURU – 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.93/2025 OF INDIRANAGAR
TH
POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF 10 ADDL. CMM
COURT, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, AND REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S.74 AND 351(2) OF THE BNS, 2023.
IN CRL.P NO. 8316/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
MUNIRAJ R.,
S/O B.M.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2. YAMINI MUNIRAJ
D/O MUNIRAJ R.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
3. DARSHANA MUNIRAJ
S/O MUNIRAJ R.,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.10/3
BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
ST TH
1 CROSS, 13 MAIN,
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
- 8 -
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTEDBY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. VARUN SAI SHRIDHAR
S/O LATE SRIDHAR RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3314,
TH TH ND
7 CROSS, 13 MAIN, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE REGISTERED FIR IN CRIME NO.74/2025
DATED 10.04.2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONER
REGISTERED BY THE INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
TH
PENDING IN THE 10 ACMM COURT MAYOHALL
BENGALURU CITY, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 115(2),
126(2), 3(5) AND 329(3) OF THE BNSS, 2023.
- 9 -
IN CRL.P NO. 11620/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
YAMINI MUNIRAJ
D/O R.MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
2. NALINI MUNIRAJ
W/O R.MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.10/3
BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
ST TH
1 CROSS, 13 MAIN,
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2.
VARUN SAI SHRIDHAR
S/O LATE SRIDHAR RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
- 10 -
RESIDING AT NO.3314,
TH TH ND
7 CROSS, 13 MAIN, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.103/2025 DATED 13.05.2025
TH
REGISTERED BY THE INDIRANAGAR P.S PENDING ON 10
ACMM COURT MAYOHALL BENGALURU CITY, THE
OFFENCES ALLEGED U/S 118(1), 126(2) AND 190 OF
BNSS, 2023 AS BEING MALICIOUS, RETALIATORY AND AN
ABUSE OF PROCESS.
IN CRL.P NO. 475/2026
BETWEEN:
1. R.MUNIRAJ
S/O B.M.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10/3,
BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA,
TH ST
13 MAIN, 1 CROSS,
NEAR BODY CRAFT.
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH – 560 008.
2. NALINI MUNIRAJ
W/O MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 10/3,
BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA,
TH ST
13 MAIN, 1 CROSS,
- 11 -
NEAR BODY CRAFT, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH – 560 008.
3. YAMINI MUNIRAJ
D/O MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10/3,
BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA,
TH ST
13 MAIN, 1 CROSS,
NEAR BODY CRAFT, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH – 560 008.
4. RONITH PEMMAIAH B.S.,
S/O B.K.SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
DEVARAPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
DEVARAPURA, GONIKOPPAL,
KODAGU – 571 213.
5. KUSUMA G.N.,
D/O G.T.NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.159,
GUNJUR, BENGALURU – 560 087.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
- 12 -
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT.ASHWINI B.,
W/O VARUN SAI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT NO.3314, 7 CROSS
TH ND
13 MAIN ROAD, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR (ANNEXURE-A) IN CR.NO.305/2025
(INDIRANAGAR P.S.) PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.
CMM FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 3(5), 324(4),
329(4), 79 OF BNS 2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.09.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
- 13 -
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
A batch of these petitions call in question the registration of
crimes against each other. In a few of the petitions, the petitioners
are the accused and the respondent is the complainant, and in a
few of the petitions, the respondents are the accused and the
petitioner is the complainant. Since the protagonists in the lis are
common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard Sri. Shashank Nagendran, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Criminal Petition No.10043 of 2023; Sri. H.
Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition
Nos.10247 of 2023, 8316 of 2025, 11620 of 2025 and 475 of 2026
and for respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition Nos. 10043 of 2023,
6202 of 2025 and 7699 of 2025; Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned
counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition Nos.6202 of 2025 and
7699 of 2025 and for respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition
Nos.10247 of 2023, 8316 of 2025, 11620 of 2025 and 475 of 2026
- 14 -
and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 in all these petitions.
3. In the light of the complaints being registered on different
points in time, I deem it appropriate to travel through each of the
petitions.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10043 OF 2023
4. Respondent No.2 is the complainant, the petitioners,
accused Nos.1 and 2. The gist of the complaint is that, the
complainant is a tenant in respect of the garage portion of the
th nd
property situated at No.3314, 7 Cross, HAL 2 Stage,
Indiranagar, Bengaluru. It is the further averment in the complaint
that the petitioners have hurled certain abuses. This becomes a
crime in Crime No.229 of 2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 509 r/w 34 of the IPC. Registration of the complaint
is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject
petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that there are several civil suits pending between the
- 15 -
parties and that the present crime so registered is an offshoot of
those civil suits that are pending between the parties. He would
submit that the ingredients of Section 504 or 509 of the IPC are not
even made in the case at hand even to its semblance. Section 509
of the IPC requires specific words, sound or gesture intended to
insult the modesty of a woman, whereas the complaint merely
states that the complainant is a lady and that the petitioners
abused her. He would further submit that the offence under Section
504 being non-cognizable, the police could not have investigated it
without the order of the learned Magistrate as obtaining under
Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., and that Section 509 has been
invoked only to get over this requirement.
6. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent
No.2 - complainant would vehemently refute the submissions
contending that there are several crimes registered between the
same parties. Therefore, the proceedings must be permitted to be
continued. Learned counsel would submit that it is not a case
where the crime should be obliterated as those are cases and
counter cases.
- 16 -
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.10247 OF 2023
7. The subject petition is filed challenging the registration of a
crime in Crime No.231 of 2023. The said crime arises out of the
same incident, which forms the fulcrum of the crime in Crime
No.229 of 2023. Therefore, it is a case and a counter case.
Respondent No.2 in the subject petition is the complainant, and is
who is one of the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.10043 of 2023.
The offences alleged in the case at hand are the ones punishable
under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504 and 149 of the IPC. In the case
at hand again, it is contention or the averment that there are
pending civil suits pending between the parties and the crime is
registered as an offshoot of those pending civil suits.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court
through the complaint pendency of those civil suits and seeks
quashment of the proceedings on the score that a case, which is
purely civil in nature is sought to be projected as a crime. It is the
submission of the learned counsel that none of the allegations so
made against the petitioners are having any ingredients even to its
semblance.
- 17 -
9. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent
No.2 – complainant would seek dismissal of the petition on the
score that the crime is registered and investigation must ensue.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6202/2025
10. The petitioner and respondent No.2 - complainant are the
same as is obtaining in afore-noted two petitions. The period of
complaint is different. What is called in question in the subject
petition is the crime in Crime No.73 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 76 and 126(2) of the
BNS.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that in the
case at hand as well the offences so alleged are punishable under
Sections 74, 75 and 76 of the BNS, which is again an offshoot of
the pending civil suits between the parties and none of the
ingredients of the offences are even made out in the case at hand.
12. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 – complainant would submit that in the case at hand, the
- 18 -
complainant is a lady and those offences have indeed taken place
and investigation in the case at hand in the least must ensue.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7699/2025
13. Respondent No.2 – complainant is an advocate, the
petitioner–accused. The gist of the complaint is that the
complainant is the absolute owner of the properties situated at
th th
#3314 and 3314/1, 13 Main, 7 Cross, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, of
which her office is at #3314 of the above-mentioned address. It is
further averred in the complaint that the petitioner assaults,
injures, and sexually assaults the complainant and disturbs the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the complainant’s property.
This becomes a crime in Crime No. 93 of 2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 351(2) and 74 of the BNS. Registration
of the complaint is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in
the subject petition.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that there are several civil suits pending between the
parties and that the present crime is set in motion with the
objective of pressurising the petitioner to settle the civil disputes.
- 19 -
Thereby giving civil disputes a criminal colour. The petitioner is
residing at the above-mentioned property with his aged mother and
minor children and is suffering from abuse and multiple false cases
by the complainant.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
emphasize that the specific nature of the crime as recorded in the
complaint is of grave nature, involving daily sexual assault on the
respondent No.2 and aggressive attacks on the respondent No.2
and her family. Learned counsel would submit that the matter must
be tried before the appropriate Court.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8316 OF 2025
16. Respondent No.2 is the complainant residing with his
aged mother, wife and two young children, the petitioners –
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are father , daughter and son respectively.
The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner was seen trespassing
the complainant’s property and trying to break open its lock. On
being discovered, a physical tussle ensues with the petitioner being
physically hurt. The petitioner No.2 shouts ‘assault’ to threaten the
complainant’s . This becomes a crime in Crime No. 74 of 2025 for
- 20 -
the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 3(5) and
329(3) of the BNS. Registration of the complaint is what has driven
the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the respondent No.2 has misled respondent No. 1 by
relying on a ‘stay order’ in their favour, which is non-existent. The
petitioners submit that the complainant has been filing cases
against the petitioners since the year 2010, with O.S. 1390 of 2010
filed by the complainant against the petitioners for an injunction
being dismissed by the concerned Court, aggrieved by which the
respondent No.2 acts maliciously.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
emphasize that the specific nature of the crime as recorded in the
complaint is of grave nature, involving an attempt to hit the
respondent No.2 on the head with a wooden plank and the
petitioner No.2 being an advocate, harassing and trying to force the
respondent No.2 and his family out of their home. Learned counsel
would submit that the matter must be tried before the appropriate
Court.
- 21 -
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11620 OF 2025
19. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2, and respondent
No.2 is the complainant. The gist of the complaint is that, the
complainant alleges that on 30.04.2025, the petitioners, along with
certain other persons, trespassed into the shared residence situated
at No.3314, 7th Cross, 13th Main, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru, and attempted to restrain the complainant and his
family members from accessing the second floor of the property. It
is the further averment in the complaint that the petitioners
attempted to damage the property with a hammer and that
petitioner No.1 assaulted the complainant with the said hammer,
causing injuries, apart from extending threats to him and his family
members. This becomes a crime in Crime No.103 of 2025 for the
offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 126(2) and 190 of the
BNS, 2023. Registration of the crime is what has driven the
petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
- 22 -
20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that there are several civil suits pending between the
parties in respect of the very same property since the year 2010
and that the present crime is an offshoot of the civil disputes
pending between the parties. He would submit that the present
complaint is a counterblast to the earlier complaint lodged by
petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2, which was registered in
Crime No.73 of 2025 on 10.04.2025. It is his submission that the
alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 30.04.2025,
whereas the complaint came to be lodged on 07.05.2025 and the
FIR was registered on 13.05.2025, without any satisfactory
explanation for the delay. He would further submit that no medical
records are produced to substantiate the alleged assault and that
the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out even to
their semblance. The petitioners, being lawful residents of the
property, cannot be alleged to have committed trespass into the
very premises in question. He would submit that the criminal
proceedings are instituted only to exert pressure in the pending civil
litigation and are an abuse of the process of law.
- 23 -
21. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
complainant would refute the submissions and contend that the
complainant has specifically narrated the incident of trespass,
assault and criminal intimidation in the complaint. He would submit
that the delay in lodging the complaint has been explained on
account of the threats allegedly extended by the petitioners and the
circumstances prevailing in the family. It is his submission that the
allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences and,
therefore, investigation in the case at hand must be permitted to
ensue.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 475 OF 2026
22. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5, and respondent
No.2 is the complainant. The gist of the complaint is that, on
14.12.2025, the petitioners allegedly went near the complainant's
house and broke the main entrance using a hammer, apart from
abusing and harassing the complainant and her family members. It
is the further averment in the complaint that the incident occurred
while the complainant was breastfeeding her child and that the
petitioners were recording her. This becomes a crime in Crime
- 24 -
No.305 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5),
324(4), 329(4) and 79 of the BNS, 2023. Registration of the crime
is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject
petition.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that there are longstanding civil disputes between the
parties in respect of the very same property and that the present
crime is an offshoot of those disputes. He would submit that
petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were solemnizing their marriage on the
alleged date of the incident and, therefore, their presence at the
scene of occurrence was impossible. He would further submit that
the earlier suit instituted by the complainant's husband in O.S.
No.1390 of 2010 has been dismissed and that the petitioners have
instituted O.S. No.5151 of 2024, in which an order of status quo is
operating. It is his submission that the complaint is maliciously
instituted to wreak vengeance against the petitioners and that the
ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out even to their
semblance.
- 25 -
24. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
complainant would seek dismissal of the petition contending that
the petitioners have committed the alleged acts of trespass,
damage to property and harassment and that the criminal
proceedings have been rightly instituted against them.
25. Identical submissions are made in all the petitions, with
respect to crimes alleged to have been registered against each
other, that is, a case or a counter case is challenged in these
petitions.
26. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
27. In the light of the submissions made by the respective
learned counsel, and before embarking upon the exercise of
noticing the complaint, I deem it appropriate to go back to the
history of the proceedings between the parties. It is not in dispute
that a suit in O.S.No.1390/2010 is pending between the parties,
seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.01.2010,
- 26 -
executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4, is
not binding on the plaintiff.
28. The subject crimes arise out of cases and counter cases,
as the petitioners/accused in some of these petitions are the
complainants in the companion petitions. Insofar as the suit
schedule properties are concerned, the suit comes to be dismissed
in terms of the judgment dated 17.07.2023. It is after the dismissal
of the suit that all these proceedings have sprung up between the
parties. I deem it appropriate to notice each of the complaints in
each of the cases.
28.1. In Criminal Petition No.10043 of 2023, the complaint
reads as follows:
“DATE: 14/09/2023
TO,
THE STATION HOUSE POLICE OFFICE
648/L, OLD MADRAS RD, BINNAMANGALA,
HOYSALA NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 038
Respected Sir,
Sub: Complaint against Varun Sai Sridhar (Software
Engineer working in Oracle) - M. No. 96866
09908 and his wife Smt Ashwini Varun Sai
- 27 -
01. I am a tenant in respect of the garage portion of the
property bearing No. 3314, situated at 7th Cross, 13th Main
Road, H. A. L. 2nd stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru 560 008. I
have herewith annexed the copy of the rental agreement along
with this complaint.
02. In the garage premises I am having my office along
with my colleagues to assist the Economically weaker Section
and depressed people in the society especially in and around of
my office premises. Adjoining to my office premises of Varun
Sai, Smt Ashwini Varun said his wife and Smt C. Jayanthi his
mother are residing in a portion of the building/premises.
03. The access to my office premises and to the residence
of Varun sai and C. Jayanthi are situated, at different places /
locations. I am herewith annexed the photos of the residence as
well as my office premises, which are self-explanatory in respect
of separate access / entry point to the respective premises. and
Smt C. Jayanthi his mother are residing in a portion of the
building/premises.
04. The access to my office premises and to the residence
of Varun sai and C. Jayanthi are situated at different places /
locations. I am herewith annexed the photos of the residence as
well as my office premises, which are self-explanatory in respect
of separate access/entry point to the respective premises.
05. In order to park the car Varun Sai and his wife, have
made a provision in front of the building a canopy for parking
their car. So as to facilitate not to create any obstruction for
easy access to the office premises portion along with the
remaining portion. I have herewith annexed the photograph,
which shows the parking of a car at canopy pertains to Varun
Sai.
06. Since, Varun Sai and his mother have filed false and
frivolous suits in respect of a portion of the premises against the
Landlords of my premises. In order to torture my landlords as
well as me, he is creating obstruction for our free movement /
access to my office premises and creating nuisance in front of
the gate of my office premises. Even though he has made an
- 28 -
exclusive and separate facility/provision for car parking in front
of the building as stated above.
07. Recently, when I have opened my office to collect the
files and papers he had parked his two-wheeler vehicle near the
door of my office and also parked his car in front of my office
premises with an intention to block the entry / access to the
office and which also leads to non availability of the access /
entry to our clients also. He is coming in the way of ingress and
egress to my office. This is a routine job / habit for a couple of
days.
08. Even though he was summoned to the police station
and has been warned not to repeat or do such things. But, still
he is continuing and repeating the same act and activities every
day. On 4th September 2023 around 1 P. M., when we return
from the court to collect some urgent files to attend the court at
2.45 P. M. Varun Sai had parked his vehicles and his two-
wheeler in front my office when I and my colleagues have
informed and requested him to move / take away his vehicle
and allow us to access/entry to my office. He pulled my hand
and insulted me in front of public.
09. Varun Sai has started abusing us at that time and
went to an extent of making personal allegations against me
deliberately, forgetting for a moment that he is speaking to a
lady, who is an Advocate and law-abiding citizen. When, we try
to convey him the urgency of the situation, his wife had also
joined him. She had also started shouting at me and my
colleagues including my landlord/my father in a filthy language.
10. I have told him that if he continues the same act and
activities again and again repeatedly, inevitably I have to call
Hoysala Police. Then, he started laughing at me and said that he
will manage the Hoysala police by throwing the money i.e., Rs.
2,000/- on their face and he will manage them as well as the
situation.
11. When, I have brought to his notice that he has no
business to talk about the public authorities in this
manner/fashion. He went to an extent by saying that even he
will buy any Advocate or public authority/officer to achieve his
illegal ends. I am herewith annexed the photographs, which are
- 29 -
self-explanatory about the events which took place on 4th
September 2023.
12. During the course of my conversation with him in a
dignified and descent manner as stated above, he started to
interfere in my office by taking away the plug that leads to
power cut to my office. He started to insulting me and my
colleagues in a filthy language with an intention to provoke us.
He is disturbing the natural functioning of my office and he is
repeating this kind of acts and activities again and again
repeatedly.
13. My clients are afraid to come to my office for the
aforesaid reasons. He is coming in the way of discharging the
professional duties and responsibilities. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances I am giving this complaint.
Please provide me protection from his illegal interference to my
office premises, to perform my duties being the constitutional
profession/ work and make an arrangement to remove the
blockade / hurdles to my office premises.
Hence, I request you to intervene in the above matter
and please provide me with police protection and take necessary
legal action against them, to avoid the law and order situation
and endanger to my life and lives of our clients and my
colleagues.”
28.2. In Criminal Petition No.10247 of 2023, the complaint
reads as follows:
Date: 17 Sep 23
Place: Bangalore
From ,
Ashwini. B
w/o Varun Sai, aged 36 years,
- 30 -
#3314, 7th Cross, 13th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560008
Mob: 9686609908.
To,
Inspector,
Indiranagar Police Station,
Bangalore-560008.
Subject:
Complaint against R. Muniraj (Real Estate Agent),
Nalini Muniraj, their daughter Yamini Muniraj
(Advocate), their son Darshan Muniraj and their 4
unknown rowdy elements.
I got married to Varun Sai and living in this above mentioned
premises since 2017 along with my husband, mother in law
aged 63 years and son 5 years. The property where we are
residing is the subject matter of litigation in OS 3779/2010
and OS 3013/2019 which is filed against R.Muniraj and Nalini
Muniraj. Despite the matter being pending in court since 2010,
Muniraj and Nalini Muniraj have shown scant respect for the
judiciary proceedings and are trying to usurp the property by
illegal means including threats, damage to the property etc.
On 22nd August 2023 they have damaged the CCTV camera
installed by us in our property when I was alone at home as
my husband and Mother in law were out of station that day
and to this effect my husband has given a complaint in the
office of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Ulsoor
Subdivison, Bengaluru. In fact when they were damaging the
CCTV on 22nd August 2023 itself, I have questioned them
regarding the same and they have threatened me by saying
that they can do whatever they want and they know how to
- 31 -
take the whole property belonging to us including physical
possession with the help of their rowdy associates who could
throw me out of the house and also dispose of me and my
family members. Being a Pregnant lady alone at home,
immediately at that time I have called Hoysala Police fearing
for my life and safety and that day the incident was
temporarily resolved by Hoysala.
On 26th August 2023 one more incident transpired over
parking dispute and Yamini Muniraj threatened to remove our
vehicle within our own parking premises inside our home. On
to that effect, we have lodged a complaint in the office of ACP
Ulsoor Subdivision. Despite such action on 26th August 2023
they have parked the vehicle right outside the gate and
prevented us from taking our vehicle out of the compound
despite my request that I have to go for some Urgent Medical
emergency regarding my pregnancy issues.
Subsequently on 04 Sep-2023 at around 2PM, Nalini Muniraj,
Yamini Muniraj, Darshan Muniraj along with 4 of their
henchmen, brought one Metal Welding person and started to
remove the Metal door frame at the entry of our premises and
damage the Safety Grill Partition we have at Verandah of our
home. They also started to damage wooden Storage room we
have at the landing of Terrace portion. At that time, me and
my husband came out and questioned what they were doing
and at that time Darshan Muniraj, Yamini Muniraj and his
henchmen tried to restrain us and started shouting and
abusing in filthy language saying "Boli Magane" "Sule Magane"
in kannada and other abuses. Specifically Darshan Muniraj
abused me questioning my pregnancy and humiliating that I
am a prostitute and I won't be able to identify the father of the
unborn child. And the people who were accompanying her
were also making lewd comments.
When my husband told them to stop talking in that language
one of the rowdy elements has caught my husband collar and
threatened saying they will kill both of us. At that time I have
- 32 -
taken out my phone and started recording, because of which
they have left my husband and stopped abusing in filthy
language. Even that day we were forced to call Hoysala for our
protection and again because of Hoysala intervention, there
was a temporary solution. We were very scared and that's why
we could not say anything at that time. Because of this
recurrent humiliation and threat by them I got high BP and
fainted consequent to this.
However Immediately after the Hoysala Police left Darshan
Muniraj has threatened saying that if we give Police compliant
or take any action he knows how to dispose me and my family
members. Even on earlier occasions, Yamini Muniraj has
threatened to file false cases against me and my family by
abusing her profession as an Advocate. She is repeatedly
threatening and abusing to affect mine and my husbands
professional work by making false and baseless allegations.
Out of fear we have not given the complaint till today and I
now request your goodself to take action against the above
named persons in accordance with law and against us in
securing justice.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Ashwini.B)”
28.3. In Criminal Petition No.6202 of 2025, the complaint
reads as follows:
“From:
Advocate Yamini muniraju,
R/at 10/3 bhairaveshwara nilaya,
1 cross. 13th main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Indira Nagar,
Bengaluru -560008
- 33 -
7676126760; 9880020460.
To,
The station house officer
of Indira Nagar, Bengaluru.
Sub: Attacked by Varun Sai.
Respected sir,
I Yamini muniraju D/O R muniraju I am advocate by
profession I am running a law office in 3314. 7th cross 13th
main, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar Bengaluru. As a tenant and
paying the rent to the landlord who is Mr R muniraju of and
3314/1 & 3314 owner of both the property.
They are civil suit pending in the court and we have patiently
weighted for justice to be delivered by where as Varun Sai has
been acting an civilized manner for years.
In the year 2024 Varun had file a file if I are crime number
110/2024 against our plumber who were working for us and
was asked to fix the AC leak in the office and we had lost
Brook open the door which led to Fir crime number 110/2024
after a Taro enquiry by the IO on record documents where
gather through section 91 of CrPC and final be report was
filed.
Varun Sai from day one of me opening the office has only
harassed me as I am a woman by practicing black magic
rituals which was bought to the notice of this station and NCR
was file on 16.01.2025 and 07.03.2025 along with the
necessary documents.
On 10.04.2025 around the 03:08 p.m. Varun Varun Sai
restore to Physical assault by pulling my clothes pushing me
when me and my father R Muniraju went to check the terrace
- 34 -
door is we had locked it. Varun Sai started acting in human
like by touching blocking the way to our terrace door pushing
me and my father which has led to serious injury.
I am in constant fear of my and my family's life cause of Varun
sai action towards as I request the authority to take necessary
action as I am outrage of my modesty as a woman who lives
in fear all the time.
10.04.2025 17:15
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಗಂ
ೆ ೆ
ಾಾರರು ಾೆ ೆ ಾಜಾ ೕದ ದೂರನು
73/2025 U/S 74,75,
ಪ ೆದು ಾಾ ನಂಬ
126(2), 76 Of B.N.S
ಅ ಯ#$ ಪ&ಕರಣ ಾಖಲು *ಾ ರು+ೆ,ೕೆ.”
28.4. In Criminal Petition No.7699 of 2025, the complaint
reads as follows:
“From,
Yamini Muniraj,
#10/3, 13 Main,
st
1 Cross, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru 560 008.
To.
Station House Officer,
Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560 008.
Respected Sir/Madam,
- 35 -
Subject: Complaint by assault by Varun Sai Sridhar.
I advocate, Yamini Muniraj, D/o. R. Muniraj, I am
having law office at 3314, 13th main, 7th Cross, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru-560008 (VDJ). My parents are absolute title owner
of #3314 and 3314/1 in the above mentioned address, and
Varun Sai Sridhar has been continuously assaulting me and
my family members, my Associates, and disturbing with the
peaceful position and enjoyment with our portion of property.
On 9th April 2025, Varun Sai Sridhar filed an O.S.No.
2705/2025 against me, and my family members tried to take
party injunction order against us based on fabricated and false
documents. On 10th April 2025, Hon'ble Court granted Status-
quo order and Varun Sai Sridhar breached the status quo and
forcefully tried to take control of terrace of the property
bearing number 3314/1. And tried to push my father and
attacked me with criminal force, causing grievous hurt,
touched my private part and tried to disturb me, and for which
an FIR was filed under an Crime No.73/2025 as per MLC
respectively. These Criminal action is modus operandi of Varun
Sai Sridhar to through me and my family out of our own
property. He has also misrepresented the facts before the
police station and by stating that "there is a stay granted by
the court on the property of his favour". Over the year from
2010, he has been continuously creating law and order
situation by harassing me and my family member and ever
since I have been started my office, I light of present event he
has resorted to black magic and physical violence against me
and my family along with filing multiple false complaints
against me and my family members.
On 28th April 2024, the Hon'ble Court rejected the
application for injunction filed by the Varun Sai Shridhar in O.S
number 2705/2025, Varun Sai Sridhar got a stay on the Crime
No.73/2025 on 28.04.2025 and on 30.05.2025, when me and
my mother tried to open the door. Varun Sir Sridhar
aggressively rush towards me and assaulted me to which an
- 36 -
injury was sustained by me on my right hand and on MLC was
done on 30th April 2025 at around 4 PM. In the light of above.
I request police protection against me and my family members
against Varun Sai Sridhar, and his family as this is the second
assault on me and my family member within a period of 30
days and there is a consistent threat to me and my family,
notably by his action, he is willing to go to any extend criminal
to achieve his motive. Hence, it is requested that police to
take appropriate legal action and take Varun Sai Sridhar into
custody and protect my family as there is sexual assault daily
continued on me in order to pressurising my parents to give
up and to take over the property by hook or crook now
resorting to attack me, pushing himself on me, mentally
physically, threatening me and my family.
Faithfully
Thanking You
Yamini Muniraj”
28.5. In Criminal Petition No.8316 of 2025, the complaint
reads as follows:
th
“Date: 10 APRIL 2025
Place: Bengaluru
Time: 4:00PM
To,
Inspector indiranagar Police Station Bengaluru
From,
Varun Sai S,
#3314, 7th Cross, 13th Main
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore – 560008,
- 37 -
Mob: 9686609408.
Respected Sir,
Sub.: Complaint against R. Muniraj, his daughter Yamini
Muniraj & his son Darshan Muniraj residing at AO 10/3,
Byraveshwara Nilaya, 1st Cross HAL 2nd stage, Indiranagar
Bangalore -560008 for
1. Trying to hit on the head, threatening & harassing
myself
2. Trespassing to my property & drying to break the
lock of the Second Floor
3. Causing Forceful Restraint by manhandling to enter
my premises Second Floor causing grievous wounds.
On this day around 5 PM when I went upstairs to my second
floor, R. Muniraj & Yamini Muniraj were seen Trespassing &
trying to access my property in Second Floor & Broke the lock
of the Second Floor.
Further Yamini Muniraj caused Forceful Restraint by preventing
me to access the Second Floor, by manhandling and pushing
me to the wooden walls of the room with sharp Nails as it was
broken by them and hence causing severe Injury with wounds
and torn T-shirt.
Thereafter, Muniraj, father of Yamini Muniraj tried to hit me on
the head with wooden planks in an attempt to threaten &
harress me while Yamini Muniraj kept on saying "ASSAULT....
ASSAULT..." repeatedly threatening me.
In spite of their continuous harassment & threats I was
standing next to the Door to stop them from damaging my
property waiting for Hoysala police to arrive at the spot.
- 38 -
But before Hoysala police with NO HOYSALA 30 (Vehicle no
KA02G1708) arrived at the spot, they left the premises along
with their son Darshan Muniraj who was waiting outside in
ground floor to attack me.
Myself & my family is having Life Threat from R. Muniraj & his
family members, especially his daughter Yamini Muniraj who in
the pretext of being a lawyer trying to harass me and
forcefully trying to dispose me & my family from the premises
in spite of stay orders granted from Honorable City Civil Court
of Bangalore for the scheduled premises.
Hence I request you to register this complaint & take proper
action against R. Muniraj, Yamini Muniraj & their family
members as per Law and protect myself & my family by
providing security as we are having Lift Threat from them.
I am staying at my premises with aged mother, my wife and
two young children who are very much afraid because of the
harassment from them. Hence I request you to take proper
action as per Law and protect myself - my family.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
(Varun Sai S)”
28.6. In Criminal Petition No.11620 of 2025, the complaint
reads as follows:
Date: 07th May2025
Place: Bengaluru
To,
- 39 -
The Inspector,
Indiranagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
From:
Varun Sai S,
Age: 41 years,
#331/4, 7th Cross, 13th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560008
Mobile: 9686609908
Email: [email protected]
Respected Sir,
Subject: Assault using Hammer & Forceful Restraint by Lawyer
Yamini Muniraj, Her Mother Nalini Muniraj, an unknown Male
Associate Lawyer of Yamini Muniraj and 3othed unknown Men
Claiming to be residing in first floor of premises #3314, 7th
Cross, 13TH MAIN, HAL 2nd Stage Bengalure-560008
I, Varun Sai, reside with my family, my wife with two kids and
aged mother at the above mentioned premises, which was
originally owned by my Grandfather Late Col K.S Ramaswamy.
On this day, i.e 30th April 2025, around 1:15 PM, When I went
upstairs to the second floor of the premises., Yamini Muniraj,
her mother Nalini Muniraj, and their four men Associates as
mentioned about tried to restrain me and my wife from going
to the second floor and they tried to break the lock of the
second floor portion and damage the adjoining walls forcefully
using a metal hammer By taking undue advantage of an
interim court order in a pending civil case which does not
permit them to engage in unlawful activities in our residence
by damaging the property. Also Yamini Muniraj and her
associates does not have any right title interest in the entire
property.
- 40 -
When I prevented them from breaking the lock and damaging
the walls Yamini Muniraj forcibly pushed the hammer to the
back of my body and rubbed my left shoulder with hammer
resulting in a grievous injury and deep wounds on my left
shoulder with severe pain. Also they caused severe mental
stress by threatening me verbally and assaulting me.
After continuous effort and defense to stop them from
breaking the lock or walls, they left the 2nd floor but again
they started to harass my wife and mother in the ground floor
by preventing them to come upstairs and threatening our
family with dire consequences as well as life threat Because of
this my kids also got afraid.
Because of the assault and mental torture from Yamini Muniraj
and her aids, I felt Unconscious later after the incident and
then fell Severely sick for a number of days. Also because of
life threat from Yamini Muniraj and her associates, my family
also afraid to go to police station and lodge a complaint on this
before my wife being soft spoken and weak. And even till
today we are getting life threat and forceful restraint from
Yamini Muniraj and her men aids residing in first floor.
Hence we could not lodge the complaint before and doing this
same now requesting for help from police in order to protect
my family and our residence.
I have already lodged a number of complaints against Yamini
Muniraj and their men residing in the first floor who repeatedly
engage in unlawful and uncivilized acts and a case of civil
disobedience has been registered by Honorable civil court of
Bengalure against them. But even after this they have no
respect for law and continuously keep troubling myself and my
family to oust us from our residence.
Since my wife also not keeping well and having mental torture
and stress, I am giving this complaint on her behalf too. I
- 41 -
request you to take action as per law and prevent Yamini
Muniraj and her associates in disturbing our peaceful stay at
our residence and creating law and order issues. Also give
protection to myself my and my family from life threat posed
by Yamini Muniraj and her associates.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
Varun Sai. S”
28.7. In Criminal Petition No.475 of 2026, the complaint
reads as follows:
DATE: 15th Dec 2025
Place: Bengaluru
To,
INSPECTOR,
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU.
From:
Ashwini B,
W/o. Varun Sai S, 37 Y,
#3314, 7th Cross, 13th MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560008,
Mob. 9686609908.
- 42 -
Respected Sir,
Subject: (1) Breaking of our Main entrance door of our
Residential premises.
(2) Blocking of the main entrance gate
(3) Continuous disturbance/ harassment from R.
Muniraj, his wife Nalini Muniraj, His daughter Yamini
Muniraj, son-in-law Ronith Pemmaiah, their associate
by name Kusuma and their two men unknown
Associates.
On this day around 10.30 AM, R. Muniraj and Nalini Muniraj,
Kusuma along with their two men aids have brake open the
door of our main residential entrance using hammer. Even
though a stay order is present in Court not to interfere with
our peaceful possession and enjoyment of our property, they
are continuously causing disturbance and harassment to
myself and our family.
Immediately we have called Hoysala to the spot and R.
Muniraj, Nalini Muniraj and their women associate by name
Kusuma, have started harassing us in front of the police
saying they don't care the stay order and they can do
whatever they want.
They blocked myself and my kids from going upstairs to our
second floor and then started abusing us.
Because of their loud breaking noise and continuous
harassment from them my one and a half year old kid got
extremely scared with constant crying for prolonged hours and
mental trauma.
Also R. Muniraj, Nalini Muniraj, and their daughter Yamini
Muniraj, son-in-law Ronith Pemmaiah and their associate
Kusuma are blocking the main entrance gate of our residential
premises using their personal vehicles continuously, blocking
us to takeout our vehicles even though a stay order is present
- 43 -
in court for the same not to park the vehicles in front of main
gate.
They are continuously trying to peek in our residential
premises videotaping myself and my family members
disturbing our peaceful stay and invading my privacy
especially when I am breast feeding my child. Because of
which I am scared to peacefully live in my premises.
I would like you to take action as per law on the mentioned
people of subject link and give protection to myself and my
family members.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(ASHWINI B)
ಾಂಕ: 15/1/2025 ರಂದು 17:30 ಗಂ
ೆ ೆ ದೂರನು ಪ ೆದು
ಾಾ 7.ಸಂ9ೆ::305/2025 ಕಲಂ 329 (4) 324 (4) 79,
R/w.3(5) of BNS Act-2023 Kೕ+ಾ: ಪ&ಕರಣ ಾಖ#Lರು+ೆ,ೕೆ.”
The narration in the complaints are itself is indicative of the
fact that several complaints were filed and there are pending either
before the Civil Court or in several other proceedings between the
parties. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition
No.1319 of 2019, which had called in question the proceedings in
C.C.No.52534 of 2016 between the same parties, had allowed the
petition on the score that none of the offences were clearly made in
- 44 -
the case therein, in terms of the order dated 15.07.2019. The
order reads as follows:
“5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions
and perused the records.
6. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has
broken the commode and a wash basin. Section 341 of IPC
reads as follows:
“341. Punishment for wrongful
restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any
person shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one month, or with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees, or with both.”
7. The complaint does not disclose that the
complainant was restrained by the petitioner. Therefore, no
ingredients of Section 341 of IPC are made out in the
complaint. The offences under Sections 427, 504 and 506 of
IPC are non-cognizable. Therefore, in the absence of
ingredients of Section 341 of IPC, police could not have
registered the FIR. Even after investigation, no material is
placed by the prosecution to show that there existed any
circumstance suggesting commission of offence under
Section 341 of IPC. In the circumstances, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process
of law.
8. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it
is accordingly allowed.
All proceedings in C.C.No.52345/2016 pending on the
file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,
are hereby quashed.”
- 45 -
Therefore, the proceedings or the registration of the
respective crimes between the parties has taken place only as an
offshoot of the pending civil suits that are repeatedly filed against
each other. The saga of registration of the civil suits against each
other began in the year 2010 and even in the year 2025, a civil suit
is instituted in O.S.No.2705/2025. During the pendency of several
civil suits, all these allegations have sprung against each other.
29. The common stream of allegations arise against each
other is for the offences punishable under Section 427, 341, 504,
506, 509 of the IPC and the ones that are now under the provisions
of the BNS for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, and
76 of the BNS.
29.1. Section 427 of the IPC reads as follows:
“ 427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of
fifty rupees .—Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes
loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Section 427 of the IPC deals with mischief causing loss or
damage of fifty rupees or upwards, the essential ingredient being a
wrongful intent . As the crimes arise out of the civil suits pending
- 46 -
between the same parties, it can hardly be said that mischief with
criminal intent is caused by either of the parties.
29.2. The other offence alleged against the petitioner is for
the offence under Section 341 of the IPC. For an offence to be
punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, necessary ingredients that
are to be present as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC, which
reads as follows:
“339. Wrongful restraint .—Whoever voluntarily
obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to
proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception .—The obstruction of a private way over land or
water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a
lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of
this section.”
29.2.1. The interpretation of Section 341 of the IPC need not
detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex
Court in the case of KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA v. MEHERVAN
1
RUSTOM IRANI elucidates on what would be the ingredients for
the offence of wrongful restraint and holds as follows:
1
(2009) 6 SCC 475
- 47 -
“…. …. ….
11. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the
statement made by the first respondent that Accused 1 to 5
were managing the affairs of the Company and had instigated
Accused 6 to construct the road must be viewed. It is one thing
to say that the Company had asked Accused 6 to make
construction but only because Accused 1 to 5 were its Directors,
the same, in our opinion, would not be sufficient to fasten any
criminal liability on them for commission of an offence under
Section 341 IPC or otherwise.
12. “Wrongful restraint” has been defined under Section
339 IPC in the following words:
“339. Wrongful restraint .—Whoever voluntarily
obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which that person has a
right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that
person.
Exception .—The obstruction of a private way over
land or water which a person in good faith believes
himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an
offence within the meaning of this section.”
The essential ingredients of the aforementioned
provision are:
( 1 ) Accused obstructs voluntarily;
( 2 ) The victim is prevented from proceeding in
any direction;
( 3 ) Such victim has every right to proceed in that
direction.
13. Section 341 IPC provides that:
“341. Punishment for wrongful restraint .—
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one month, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
- 48 -
14. The word “voluntary” is significant. It
connotes that obstruction should be direct. The
obstructions must be a restriction on the normal
movement of a person. It should be a physical one.
They should have common intention to cause
obstruction.
15. The appellants herein were not at the site.
They did not carry out any work. No overt act or
physical obstruction on their part has been attributed.
Only because legal proceedings were pending between
the Company and Bombay Municipal Corporation
and/or with the first respondent herein, the same
would not by itself mean that the appellants were in
any way concerned with commission of a criminal
offence of causing obstructions to the first respondent
and his parents.
16. We have noticed hereinbefore that despite of
the said road being under construction, the first
respondent went to the police station thrice. He,
therefore, was not obstructed from going to the police
station . In fact, a firm action had been taken by the
authorities. The workers were asked not to do any
work on the road. We, therefore, fail to appreciate that
how, in a situation of this nature, the Managing
Director and the Directors of the Company as also the
Architect can be said to have committed an offence
under Section 341 IPC.
…. …. ….
19. Even as regards the availability of the remedy
of filing an application for discharge, the same would
not mean that although the allegations made in the
complaint petition even if given face value and taken to
be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence or
it is found to be otherwise an abuse of the process of
the court, still the High Court would refuse to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
- 49 -
20. Indisputably, there might have been some delay
on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court
but while adjusting equity the High Court was required to
take into consideration the fact that in a case of this nature
the appellants would face harassment although the
allegations contained in the complaint petition even assuming
to be correct were trivial in nature. The High Court
furthermore has failed to take into consideration the fact that
in the first information report no allegation in regard to acts
of common intention or common object on the part of the
appellants was made out. The appellants were not named as
accused therein. It is, therefore, really difficult to appreciate
as to on what basis the complaint petition was filed.
21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal
is allowed. The order summoning the appellant is quashed.”
The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that, for an
offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, the essential
ingredients of wrongful restraint under Section 339 of the IPC,
which have to be necessarily met, are that the accused must
voluntarily obstruct the victim; the victim must be prevented from
proceeding in any direction; and such victim must have a right to
proceed in that direction. All of these are absent in the case at
hand.
29.3. The other offences involved are the ones punishable
under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC. For an offence to
become punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, the
- 50 -
ingredients as obtaining in Section 503 of the IPC are required to be
met. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF
2
UTTAR PRADESH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
28. An offence under Section 503 has the following
essentials:
(1) Threatening a person with any injury;
( i ) to his person, reputation or property; or
( ii ) to the person, or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested.
(2) The threat must be with intent;
( i ) to cause alarm to that person; or
( ii ) to cause that person to do any act which he is
not legally bound to do as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat; or
( iii ) to cause that person to omit to do any act
which that person is legally entitled to do as
the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat.
29. Section 504 IPC contemplates intentionally
insulting a person and thereby provoking such person
insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a
person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted
may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may
not come within the purview of the section. But, the
words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an
intentional insult provoking the person insulted to
commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any
other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
- 51 -
and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of
events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to
commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken
away from the purview of the section merely because the
insulted person did not actually break the peace or
commit any offence having exercised self-control or
having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.
30. In judging whether particular abusive language
is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the court has to find out
what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect
of the abusive language used and not what the
complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar
idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline.
It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language
that is the test for considering whether the abusive
language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the
person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not
the particular conduct or temperament of the
complainant.
31. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence,
may not amount to an intentional insult within the
meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the
necessary element of being likely to incite the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence
and the other element of the accused intending to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the
peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to
commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and
circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general
proposition that no one commits an offence under Section
504 IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the
complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [ King
Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai , (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:
“ To constitute an offence under Section
504 IPC it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind
calculated to cause the other party to lose his
temper and say or do something violent. Public
- 52 -
peace can be broken by angry words as well as
deeds .”
(emphasis supplied)
32. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear
that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an
offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be
established that the accused had an intention to cause
alarm to the complainant.
33. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in
the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 506 IPC may probably could be said to have been
disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The allegations with
respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC can
also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all
that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was
used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the
form of abuses is not stated in the FIR.
34. One of the essential elements, as discussed
above, constituting an offence under Section 504 IPC is
that there should have been an act or conduct amounting
to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the
abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words
were in order to decide whether the use of those words
amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these
words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient
of intentional insult is present. ”
29.4. The Apex Court in the case of MADHUSHREE DATTA
3
v. STATE OF KARNATAKA , while interpreting what would become
the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC,
has held as follows:
3
(2025) 3 SCC 612
- 53 -
“…. …. ….
Sections 504 and 509 IPC
22. The next question for determination is, whether
the mere assertion of “filthy language” allegedly used by
the appellants in scolding the complainant, is sufficient to
establish commission of offences under Sections 504 and
509IPC.
23. In the above context, it would be apt to consider the
provisions contained in Section 504IPC.
24. A perusal of Section 504IPC reveals that a mere
act of insulting someone does not fulfil its requirements;
the insult must be of such a nature that it provokes the
person insulted to breach the public peace or engage in
criminal conduct. Therefore, to establish the ingredients
of Section 504IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on the
available material, that there was intentional insult with
the intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke
either disturbance of the public peace or the commission
of any other offence.
25. We may, at this juncture, profitably refer to the
decision of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of
Maharashtra [ Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra , (2013)
14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715 : AIR 2014 SC 957] ,
wherein Section 504IPC came up for interpretation and it was
held as under : (SCC pp. 49-50, paras 13-14)
“ 13 . Section 504IPC comprises of the
following ingredients viz. : (a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation
to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must
intend or know that such provocation would cause
another to break the public peace or to commit
any other offence . The intentional insult must be
of such a degree that should provoke a person to
break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. The person who intentionally insults
intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give
provocation to any other person and such
provocation will cause to break the public peace or
- 54 -
to commit any other offence, in such a situation,
the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of
the essential elements constituting the offence is
that there should have been an act or conduct
amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact
that the accused abused the complainant, as such,
is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction
under Section 504IPC .
14 . We may also indicate that it is not the law
that the actual words or language should figure in the
complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole
and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a
conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an
intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break
the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is
sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of
Section 504IPC. It is not the law that a complainant
should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable
of provoking the other person to commit any other
offence. The background facts, circumstances, the
occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person
or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the
conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions
are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while
examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings
under Section 504IPC .”
(emphasis supplied)
26. In the instant case, the charge-sheet states that
the appellants used “filthy language” while scolding the
complainant; however, no such allegation is made against
the appellants in the complaint. Furthermore, it is
nowhere alleged that this act of using filthy language and
insulting the complainant by the appellants, has provoked
the complainant to commit breach of public peace or to
commit any other offence. Therefore, from the materials
on record, the ingredients of the offence under Section
504IPC, as explained in the abovesaid decision, are not
satisfied.
27. For ascertaining whether, prima facie, the
provision of Section 509IPC was attracted, it is essential
to first understand the meaning of the term “modesty”,
to determine whether modesty has been insulted. While
- 55 -
modesty is not explicitly defined in IPC, this Court has
addressed the essence of a woman's modesty in the
decision in Ramkripal v. State of M.P. [ Ramkripal v. State
of M.P. , (2007) 11 SCC 265 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 674]
Excerpts from the decision read as under : (SCC pp. 266-
67, para 7)
“ 7 . … ’ 12 . What constitutes an outrage to
female modesty is nowhere defined in IPC. The
essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The
culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the
matter. The reaction of the woman is very
relevant, but its absence is not always decisive.
Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated
with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue
which attaches to a female owing to her sex .’ ”
(emphasis supplied)
28. Further, this Court while discussing the test for
outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509IPC
in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ Rupan Deol
Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill , (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1059] , observed as under : (SCC p. 206, para
15)
“ 15 . In State of Punjab v. Major Singh
[ State of Punjab v. Major Singh , 1966 SCC OnLine
SC 51 : AIR 1967 SC 63] a question arose whether
a female child of seven-and-a-half months could
be said to be possessed of “modesty” which could
be outraged. In answering the above question
Mudholkar, J., who along with Bachawat, J. spoke
for the majority, held that when any act done to or
in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of
sex according to the common notions of mankind
that must fall within the mischief of Section
354IPC. Needless to say, the “common notions of
mankind” referred to by the learned Judge have to
be gauged by contemporary societal standards.
The other learned Judge (Bachawat, J.) observed
that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex
and from her very birth she possesses the
modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From
the above dictionary meaning of “modesty” and
- 56 -
the interpretation given to that word by this Court
in Major Singh case [ State of Punjab v. Major
Singh , 1966 SCC OnLine SC 51 : AIR 1967 SC 63] it
appears to us that the ultimate test for
ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged,
is the action of the offender such as could be
perceived as one which is capable of shocking the
sense of decency of a woman .”
(emphasis supplied)
29. The conclusion that emerges from the above
discussion is that it will be essential for this Court to
carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to
determine whether there is sufficient material to
establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the
appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or,
to put it pithily, whether any act was intended to shock
the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman.
30. The term “filthy language”, when examined in
isolation, and without any contextual framework or
accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the
complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview
of Section 509IPC. Had there been references to specific
words used, contextual details, or any gestures—whether
preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words—
that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the
modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in
establishing the case against the appellants.
31. In considering the term “filthy language” objectively,
in the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that
the appellants' actions do not demonstrate the requisite intent
or knowledge that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that
their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response
as to constitute an insult to a woman's modesty.
…. …. ….
Section 506 IPC
- 57 -
35. This brings us to the offence under Section 506IPC,
which the High Court has found to be prima facie disclosed
against the appellants. Section 506IPC prescribes the
punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation, while
Section 503 defines the offence of criminal intimidation.
36. This Court had the occasion to examine the
ingredients of Sections 503 and 506IPC in Manik Taneja
v. State of Karnataka [ Manik Taneja v. State of
Karnataka , (2015) 7 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 132] ,
wherein it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 428, para
11)
“ 11 . … A reading of the definition of
“criminal intimidation” would indicate that there
must be an act of threatening to another person,
of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or
property of the person threatened, or to the
person in whom the threatened person is
interested and the threat must be with the intent
to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must
be to do any act which he is not legally bound to
do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled
to do.”
37. In the present case, the complaint does not
specifically attribute any threats or intimidation to the
second accused. Therefore, ingredients of Section
506IPC, prima facie, are not made out against him. The
argument that the first accused acted at the behest of the
second accused is untenable, as Section 34IPC, which imposes
vicarious liability in criminal matters, has not been applied in
this case.
38. However, the complainant has stated in her complaint
that she was threatened by the first accused, as detailed below:
“Then on 25-10-2013 at about 2.00 p.m. and
3.00 p.m. one Madhushiree Dutta (HR) asked me to
forcefully resign or otherwise I will be sent out
immediately. Further she abruptly asked me not to come
for my work henceforth.”
- 58 -
39. Before an offence of criminal intimidation to be
made out against the first accused, it must be established
that she had the intention to cause alarm to the
complainant. A review of the alleged threat reveals that
the complainant is primarily alleging illegal termination,
which constitutes a civil dispute, rather than criminal
intimidation. It is also the appellants' case, which has not
been disputed by the complainant, that the complainant
has filed a reference before the Labour Court challenging
her termination and seeking reinstatement along with
back wages. Given these circumstances and the materials
on record, the ingredients of Section 506IPC, prima facie,
are not disclosed against the first accused too .”
29.5. The offences alleged against the petitioners also include
those punishable under Sections 74, 75, and 76 of the BNS, which
were Sections 354, 354A, and 354B of the IPC, the earlier regime.
The ingredients of the said offences are conspicuously absent in the
complaints. Section 74 requires an assault or use of criminal force
with the intent to outrage, or knowing it to be likely to outrage, the
modesty of a woman. Section 75 requires unwelcome physical
contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours,
showing pornography against the will of a woman, or sexually
coloured remarks. Section 76 requires an assault or use of criminal
force with the intent to disrobe. The complaints do not narrate any
such act, word or gesture. All that is alleged is that abuses are
hurled in filthy language, without even indicating the words used or
- 59 -
the context, and without any averment of an intention to insult or
outrage the modesty of a woman. Therefore, the offences under
Sections 74, 75, 76 and 79 of the BNS are thus loosely laid.
30. A reading of the complaints, which are similar in nature,
would not indicate that the ingredients of the offences are present,
even to their semblance. In that light, the civil suits being pending
between the parties right from the year 2010 till 2025, and the
crimes having been registered against each other, the unmistakable
inference that would be drawn is that the crimes so registered are
all an offshoot of the pending civil proceedings or of the judgments
passed by the concerned civil Courts. An issue that is purely civil in
nature is projected as crimes in all these cases. Jurisprudence is
replete with the principle enunciated by the Apex Court that
criminal law cannot be set into motion as an offshoot of civil
proceedings.
30.1. The Apex Court in the case of INDER CHAND BAGRI
4
v. JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI , has held as follows:
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529
- 60 -
“…. …. ….
24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an
alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the
sale deed dated 20.06.2011 and claim damages for the
alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is
already pursuing vide Title Suit No. 160 of 2012 against
the appellant-accused which is currently pending
adjudication and hence the route through criminal
proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out,
cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a
platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle
personal scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused
therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens
rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the
prosecution against the appellant-accused are
unsustainable.
25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami , it was
held by this Court that the Court must ensure that
criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of
harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an
ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further
held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable
to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and
for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion
that to continue the criminal proceedings against the
appellant-accused herein would cause undue harassment
to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima
facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of
the IPC is made out.
26. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the
judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 (“Bhajan Lal”) with
particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court
observed:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
- 61 -
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent
powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(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.
(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 provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
- 62 -
(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.”
27. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned
judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against
the appellant-accused herein is made out. In fact, we find that
the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against
the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala-
fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case
of Bhajan Lal extracted above, squarely applies to the facts of
these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice
to permit the present prosecution to continue.
28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention
the observations of this Court in Vishal Noble
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 14 SCC
112 wherein it was observed that in recent years the
machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain
persons for their vested interests and for achieving their
oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be
vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of
omission and commission having an adverse impact on
the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We
say so for the reason that while the
complainant/respondent No. 1 has made grave
allegations against the appellant herein, he has failed to
justify the same before this Court. Such actions would
create significant divisions and distrust among people,
while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial
system, particularly criminal courts. ”
- 63 -
30.2. The Apex Court in the case of SUNISHA ANAND v.
5
STATE OF HARYANA , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
4. The allegation as seen from the first FIR is that the
appellant is the daughter of one Onkar Singh and Mohinder
Kaur, who are title holders to certain properties. Onkar Singh
having died, the appellant also obtained right over the said
property by way of succession. It is the allegation that the
mother of the appellant got fake GPAs executed and
registered on the strength of which lands were
transferred to the accused Pratap Singh and Prem Pal,
who entered into further conveyances with respect to the
same properties. It was also alleged that the appellant
and her mother did not have title over the entire
properties, the title to a portion of which having been
divested by transfer to the Government. In the first FIR, the
first information statement refers to the appellant, but the
appellant was not made one of the accused. In the second FIR
produced as Annexure P10 the very same allegations are
levelled and there is nothing unearthed to find the culpability of
the appellant herein but for a reference to a jamabandi having
been referred to in the document, which in fact does not exist.
5. As we see from the records, the de-facto
complainant, the second respondent is said to be in
possession of certain lands, which was the subject matter
of the transaction alleged. The appellant along with her
mother is said to have executed a GPA on the strength of
which and by a separate sale deed having conveyed
certain properties to the accused. We are unable to
comprehend how the GPA can be termed as fake or
fraudulent, when the very contention is that the GPAs
were executed by the mother and daughter. Further the
jamabandi having been noticed in the sale deed or the
vendors having conveyed more property than they had
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 859
- 64 -
title over cannot lead to any criminal liability as such;
which if at all alleged, should be by the purchasers. Here,
a person alleged to be in occupation of a land has filed
the complaint and we are unable to find any reason on
facts as disclosed from the FIR to even allege any
criminality on the appellant herein. Admittedly, there is a
civil suit pending as initiated by the de-facto complainant.
Criminal law cannot be used to further the cause in a
purely civil dispute. ”
30.3. The Apex Court in the case of BHIKHUBHAI
6
GOVINDBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT , has held as
follows:
“…. …. ….
37. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
dispute between the parties pertains to title and ownership over
ancestral immovable property bearing Survey No. 157 situated
at Village Panas, Surat. The record reveals that civil
proceedings in respect of the said property have
remained pending since the year 2000. The appellants
instituted Special Civil Suit No. 377/2000 asserting their
⅔
claim to rd share in the suit property and that the
dispute has travelled through multiple rounds of litigation
before the civil courts, the High Court and even this
Court.
38. It is pertinent to note that throughout the civil
litigation for several years, respondent No. 2 never
alleged commission of offences such as extortion,
criminal intimidation, forgery or conspiracy by the
appellants. On perusal of the written statement filed by
respondent No. 2 in the civil proceedings, being Special
Civil Suit No. 377/2000, it is true that respondent No. 2
asserted exclusive ownership over the property but did
6
2026 SCC OnLine SC 915
- 65 -
not contain the allegation of any criminal conduct
committed by the appellants. To our minds, this
circumstance is of importance because the said
allegations were levelled in the impugned FIR and are
related to events occurring in or around the year 2001,
i.e., during the period of the civil litigation.
…. …. ….
40. The High Court in the impugned judgment, despite
noting down this sequence of events, failed to examine the legal
effect of suppression of the earlier complaint and the material
improvement introduced in the subsequent impugned FIR. In
our view, the subsequent introduction of allegations of
extortion, demand of money and intimidation in the
second complaint materially alters the nature and
complexion of the dispute and supports the contention of
the appellants that the criminal proceedings are an
afterthought intended to give criminal colour to a
longstanding civil dispute. Though respondent No. 2
contended that the subsequent FIR merely elaborated
upon earlier allegations, we find that the allegation of
extortion, which is one of the grave accusations in the
FIR, was absent in the first complaint and surfaced only
subsequently. Thus, such material improvements cannot
be ignored while examining whether the criminal process
is being abused or not.
…. …. ….
42. Recently, this Court, in Mohd. Wajid v. State of
U.P. (supra), held that where delay is coupled with
circumstances creating serious doubt about the
genuineness of the prosecution, the proceedings may
warrant quashing. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
“36. 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
- 66 -
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.
37. 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.
38. 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.”
43. We shall now examine whether the allegations
contained in the impugned FIR, even if taken at face value,
disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.
…. …. ….
46. Similarly, the ingredients of the offence of
cheating punishable under Section 420 of the IPC are also
- 67 -
absent, i.e. to constitute the offence of cheating, there
must exist deception, fraudulent inducement and
consequential delivery of property coupled with dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction. There is no
allegation in the FIR that respondent No. 2 delivered any
property, money or valuable security to the appellants
pursuant to deception or inducement and importantly,
the material on record does not disclose dishonest
intention at inception. The High Court in the impugned
judgment observed that “false representation” was made
by the accused persons despite knowing that they had no
title. However, the foundation of the pending civil suit is
⅓
the claim of the appellants that they possessed rd share
in the property pursuant to the ULC Act proceedings and
related revenue records and thus, a disputed civil claim
cannot automatically be treated as fraudulent
representation so as to attract Section 420 of the IPC. ”
In the light of the cases and the counter cases arising out of
an offshoot of the civil proceedings pending between the parties,
engaging in criminal justice system for those purposes would
become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage
of justice. Therefore, either of the cases registered by the accused
or against the complainant which do have any semblance of
ingredients for directing further investigation or trial at respective
stages that they are.
- 68 -
31. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petitions are allowed.
b. The impugned crimes in Crime Nos.229/2023, 231/2023,
73/2025, 93/2025, 74/2025, 103/2025 and 305/2025 in
the respective petitions stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ