SRI VENU @ VENUKRISHINA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13488 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

SRI VENU @ VENUKRISHINA
S/O DEENDAYAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30,
AGARABATTI FACTORY ROAD,
UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 061
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BIDADI POLICE STATION,
BIDADI, RAMANAGAR
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU- 560 001

2. MS. NAYANA P.
D/O PRAKASH C. P.
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT SANJEEVAYYANA DODDI,
BIDADI, RAMANAGAR-562 109.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. SATYANARAYANA S CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
30.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, FIR BEARING CR.NO.106/2021
DATED 30.03.2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE












Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354C, 366, 342, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
VIDE ANNEXURE-B CHARGE SHEET BEARING NO.79/2021
DATED 21.05.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 384, 366, 342,
506 AND 34 OFIPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C, COGNIZANCE ORDER
DATED 17.03.2022 IN C.C.NO.23/2021 BY PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AT RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.33/2022 BEFORE THE PRL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 27.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CAV ORDER

1. This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.2 under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.23/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Ramanagara, arising out of Crime No.106/2021
registered by the respondent No.1-Police on the basis of the
complaint lodged by respondent No.2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 384, 366, 342 and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC, and the subsequent proceedings in
S.C.No.33/2022 pending on the file of the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
30.03.2021, alleging that on 24.03.2021, accused No.1 forcibly

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


took her from her residence in a car belonging to
petitioner/accused No.2. Subsequently, on 25.03.2021, she
was compelled to marry accused No.1 at a temple in Bengaluru.
Thereafter, she was allegedly kept in illegal confinement and
threatened with circulation of her inappropriate photographs.
Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case,
conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the
accused persons.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
HCGP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that neither the complaint nor the charge sheet
discloses any specific overt act attributable to the petitioner.
The only allegation against the petitioner is that respondent
No.2 was taken in a car belonging to him. It is contended that
there is no prima facie material to establish the petitioner's
involvement in the alleged offences. Mere presence of the
petitioner at the time of marriage or his acquaintance with
accused No.1 cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to subject
him to criminal prosecution. Hence, it is contended that
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the
learned counsel seeks to allow the petition.
5. Learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that since
the charge sheet has been filed by the Police and the statement
of witnesses reveals the involvement of the petitioner in the
alleged crime, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be
quashed, at this stage. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the
petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the documents available on record.
7. As could be gathered from the records, the only prima
facie allegation against the petitioner is that respondent No.2
was taken in a car belonging to the petitioner. However, a
perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet material does
not disclose any specific overt act attributable to the petitioner
so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. Further,
on perusal of the statement of witnesses also do not disclose
the overt act of this petitioner, how he has shared the common
intention with accused No.1, either to kidnap or to use criminal

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


force against the complainant-respondent No.2. Hence, Even if
the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet are
accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute
the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
Further, the complaint averments themselves disclose that
respondent No.2 had given a statement against her father
before the Commissioner's Office and the Women Commission.
8. It is by now well settled that continuation of the criminal
proceedings against any person on the basis of a frivolous or
vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would
tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous
and vexatious allegations are leveled. The Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 , held that whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of constitution to get the FIR or criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care
and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for the Court

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


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. On the
other hand, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstance emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or
Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case, but is empowered to take into a count the
overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation.
9. Thus, on an overall consideration of the materials on
record, I am of the considered view that even if the entire
allegation in the complaint taken on their face value, still no
prima facie case is made out against this petitioner for the
offences he has been charge sheeted. As such, continuation of
the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2
would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 13488 of 2024


ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed .

ii. The proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.23/2021
on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
CJM, Ramanagara, arising out FIR in Crime
No.106/2021 registered by the 1st
respondent police based on the complaint
lodged by respondent No.2 against the
accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 384, 366, 342, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and further proceedings
against the petitioner in S.C.No.33/2022 on
the file of learned Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, are hereby
quashed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE


PKS/K