NARENDRA G S/O PEDDA BASAVAYYA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101662 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. NARENDRA G. S/O. PEDDA BASAVAYYA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
TH
R/O. 14 WARD, SIRAGUPPA TOWN,
BALLARI, KARNATAKA-583101.
2. PEDDAKKA G. @ PEDDA BASAVAYYA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
TH
R/O. 14 WARD, SIRAGUPPA TOWN,
BALLARI, KARNATAKA-583101.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
3. CHANCHU NAIDU @ PEDDA BASAVAYYA
PHAPAYYA KAMMA, AGE: 30 YEARS,
TH
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 14 WARD,
SIRAGUPPA TOWN, BALLARI-583101,
KARNATAKA.
4. PEDDA BASAVAYYA @ PHAPAYYA KAMMA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
TH
R/O. 14 WARD, SIRAGUPPA TOWN,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
BALLARI-583101, KARNATAKA.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SIRUGUPPA P.S., REPRESENTED BY
THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD-580008.
2. CHUNCHURAMAYYA PHAPAYYA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
TH
R/O. 18 WARD SADASHIVANAGAR,
SIRAGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI-583101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SABEEL AHMAD, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.PC.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIRUGUPPA IN C.C.NO.42/2020 WITH
RESPECT TO ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 341, 323, 326, 355, 504, 506 R/W. SECTION 34, IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Santosh B.Malligawad, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for
respondent No.1/State and Sri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 have filed this
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.42/2020 pending on the file of
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, Bellary, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 355,
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under:
On 16.04.2019, the defacto complainant lodged a
complaint alleging that on 15.04.2019 in the afternoon that is
at 01:30 p.m. when the defacto complainant was proceeding
towards his house, accused No.1 came in his motorcycle
bearing No.KA-34/EJ-8592, picked up a quarrel with defacto
complainant, abused him in filthy language and dashed against
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
the defacto complainant with his motorcycle and caused severe
injury. Hence, CWs.4 to 8 pacified the quarrel. Further, accused
No.1 also assaulted the defacto complainant with rod on the
right knee of the defacto complainant and caused grievous
injury. Hence, he lodged the complaint. This led to registration
of FIR and investigation. Taking exceptions to the same, the
petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash the entire
proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contended that the Trial Court took cognizance mechanically
against all the accused persons without there being any
material on record and the Trial Court has not applied judicious
mind. Further, the charge sheet does not make out any prima
facie case against the petitioners and the involvement or
culpability of the accused persons in the crime. Further, the
ingredients of Sections 341, 323, 326, 355, 504 of IPC are also
not attracted. There is case and counter case between the
parties. Initially accused No.1 lodged complaint against the
defacto complainant in Crime No.77/2019, wherein the
Investigating Officer filed the ‘B’ report and in the complaint
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
filed by the defacto complainant, the Investigating Officer has
filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein. Further in
both the crimes, the Investigating Officers are different, which
is not permissible under law. Hence, the learned counsel prayed
to quash the entire proceedings.
5. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended
that there is prima facie allegation against the petitioners and
they are involved in the alleged offences. Hence, learned HCGP
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. The perusal of the entire charge sheet material
discloses that the statement of defacto complainant and the
statement of CWs.4 to 8 clearly demonstrated that on the day
of incident accused No.1 took quarrel with the defacto
complainant, dashed him with his motorcycle and also
assaulted with rod on the left knee of the defacto complainant
and caused grievous injuries. None of these witnesses have
stated about the individual overt-act of accused No.2 to 4, in
their statements. Hence, the ingredient of Sections 341, 323,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
326, 355, 504 and 406 of IPC are not attracted against accused
No.2 to 4 are concerned.
7. At the time of incident, accused No.2 to 4 were
present at the scene of offence. Further, mere expression of
any words without any intention to cause alarm to the
complainant or to make him to do will not follow the definition
of criminal intimidation. In view of the preceding analysis, this
court is of the considered opinion that the criminal prosecution
foisted against accused No.2 to 4 is without any probable cause
and the entire allegation is against accused No.1. Hence,
continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.2 to 4
is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal petition is allowed in part .
ii. The entire criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.42/2020 pending on the file of learned
Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, Bellary,
registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 326, 355, 504 and 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17645
CRL.P No.101662 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020121132023
insofar as petitioners No.2 to 4/accused No.2 to
4 are concerned.
iii. The criminal case to be continued against
petitioner No.1/accused No.1.
iv. In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration and accordingly, they are
dismissed.
v. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order
to the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9