SHIVAKUMAR N vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7467 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR N
S/O J.M.NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO.148, 1 FLOOR
TH
6 CROSS, VAISHNAVINAGAR
CHECK POST, KENGERI
BANGALORE-560060
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CID, CARLTON HOUSE
PALACE ROAD
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. KRIPLANI M
S/O MADANAKANTHAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.2093, 16 ‘B’ MAIN
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560008
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST
HIM IN C.C.NO.867/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU VIDE DOCUMENTS NO.3
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 394 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
State. Though this court has issued the notice against the
respondent No.2, he did not choose to appear inspite of service
of notice.
2. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.867/2015
for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section
34 of IPC.
3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that this petitioner was working as a Police Constable at
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
Viveknagar Law and Order Police Station during 2008 vide PC
No.6389. While discharging his duties as Police Constable on
27.09.2008, the Police Station received wireless information
that some incident of altercation is happening near Airview
Point, Domlur, Inner Ring Road, Koramangala. The said
information was received from the Central Division, Control
room. Upon receipt of such wireless message, the petitioner
along with Prakash Marigowda, another constable attached to
the said police station, have visited the spot in their Hoysala
vehicle. On such visit, they came to know that at about 01.15
a.m., one Maruthi car bearing registration No. KA03-MD-3085
came in rash and negligent manner, driven by one Mr. Vijay,
who is the friend of the complainant/respondent. The traffic
police have asked the driver of the said car to stop his vehicle
but he did not stop the vehicle and police have informed the
same and in the next stop by putting the barricade, the said car
was stopped. Then altercation was taken place and this
petitioner who went in a Hoysala vehicle. Hence, the case was
also registered against complainant in Crime No.272/2008 for
offences punishable 353 of IPC. In the said case, he was
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
pleaded guilty. Later on 22.10.2008, he has filed the complaint
and at the first instance, only charge sheet was filed against
the two officials and this petitioner was not included and
immediately he had approached this court and this Court
directed to investigate the matter by CID. CID had investigated
the matter and filed the charge sheet against this petitioner.
The same also was challenged by the complainant before this
court. Subsequently, the other accused persons have also been
arrayed and the same has been challenged before this court.
This court did not entertain the writ petition and hence, the
same was challenged before the Apex Court and Apex Court
stayed the same.
4. Now the counsel appearing for this petitioner would
vehemently contend that when the incident was taken place on
27.09.2008 that too in the midnight. When the case was
registered against the complainant, he pleaded guilty. But the
present complaint was filed on 21.10.2008 i.e., after the lapse
of 25 days. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the
case was filed against this petitioner, investigation was
conducted and when the sanction is sought, no such sanction
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
was granted. The contention of the counsel that the
complainant is having the habit of filing the cases against the
customs officials and also against the Police Officials and
whoever takes action against him and also produced the
documents before this Court showing number of cases
registered against the complainant and so also number of NCRs
are also issued not only in this State and even in this State of
Tamil Nadu. Hence, the Court has to take note of the conduct.
5. The counsel also submits that when the allegation
made against this petitioner that this petitioner who came in
Hoysala vehicle forcibly took the complainant and assaulted
inside the vehicle. But the complainant did not go to the
hospital on the very day and no treatment was taken. The
counsel also submits that when the complainant went to
hospital on 06.10.2008, history was also given as fell down and
sustained injuries. The counsel also brought to notice of this
court that he was in a drunken state of affairs and to that also
there is a report. Apart from that counsel also submits that
even complaint was given by the complainant himself and
report as per Document No.25 is also very clear that no such
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
any theft of mobile or any gold chain and the report is goes
against the complainant. Having considering all this material, it
is clear that it is only a case of abuse of process and this
petitioner name was not found when the police investigated the
matter and filed the charge sheet. Only subsequent to the
direction of this court, further investigation was conducted and
this petitioner has been arrayed as accused. In the absence of
any material that the complainant had sustained injuries on the
date of incident of 27.09.2008, question of continuing the
prosecution against this petitioner does not arise.
6. The counsel appearing for the State would submit
that at the first instance, the petitioner was not arrayed as an
accused but when the charge sheet was filed but subsequent to
the direction given by this court, further investigation was
conducted by the CID and this petitioner has been arrayed as
accused. Counsel for the State has fairly submits that there is
no any document to show that the complainant has sustained
injuries to invoke the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
Particularly, this court has to note that offence invoked only
394 of IPC and no other offences are invoked.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
7. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that the
accusation made in the charge sheet wherein it discloses that
this petitioner along with accused Nos.2 to 4 forcibly made him
sit in the vehicle and assaulted with hands. Hence, the matter
requires the trial.
8. Having considered the column No.17 of the charge
sheet when the offence was invoked under Sections 394 and
323 of IPC only passing reference is made that accused Nos.2,
3 and 4 took him forcibly to the Hoysala vehicle and assaulted.
But no document to show that he has sustained any injury. The
specific accusation is that assaulted with their hands on the
face. It has to be noted that when the allegation was made
against this petitioner that he was also assaulted, but the
complainant did not go to the hospital for treatement. But he
went to hospital on 06.10.2008 wherein also he has given the
history that he fell down and sustained the injuries. Apart from
that court has to take note that the incident was taken place on
27.09.2018 and he had pleaded guilty when the case was filed
against him and the report also discloses that he was in a
drunken state of affairs at the time of the incident. It is also
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
important to note that court has to take note that both of them
did not stop the vehicle at the first instance and they were
stopped the car in the another place where put the barricade
and then altercation was taken place. The court has to take
note of the conduct of the complainant also. Only an after
thought he gave the complaint after 25 days of the incident.
When the investigation was conducted and sought the
permission of the government to file a charge sheet, no such
sanction was also granted. When such being the case, court
has to take note that it is nothing but exercising of the powers
by police at the time of when the altercation was taken place
and he was in the drunken state of affairs and he did not
cooperate with the police when he was taken in the Hoysala
vehicle. That is not even considered as that is the excess of
powers.
9. Having taken note of the fact that complaint was
filed belatedly i.e., after 25 days of the incident and history was
given before the hospital after lapse of 10 days that he fell
down, but no immediate document that he had taken treatment
for the injuries he had sustained. When the allegation were
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
made against this petitioner along with other accused that all of
them have assaulted with their hands on the complainant but
there is no materials regarding taking of treatment. At the first
instance, this petitioner name was not found in the charge
sheet and subsequently, his name is included. The counsel also
would submit that when the charge sheet was filed, the
witnesses have been subsequently arrayed as accused in
respect of this incident is concerned. Considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case and when the material is
not placed before the court in respect of the alleged incident
and this petitioner has not been arrayed as accused at the first
instance and the complaint is also filed after thought i.e., after
25 days of the incident and also the complainant has not taken
any treatment immediately, it is nothing but an abuse of
process. Court has to take note of conduct of the complainant
when several cases are registered against him and if powers
under Section 482 is not exercised, it amounts to a abuse of
process and so also which leads to miscarriage of justice.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58446
CRL.P No. 7467 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010447032019
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in
C.C.No.867/2015 for the offence punishable under
Section 394 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN