SMT ARPITHA C J vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9198 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ARPITHA C.J.
W/O HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A MARULUHOLA
CHENNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 562 160.
2. SRI. AREKESH C.J.
S/O LATE JAYARAMU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A MARULUHOLA
CHENNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 562 160.
3. GEETHA @ GEETHA H.S.
W/O LATE JAYARAMU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A MARULUHOLA
CHENNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 562 160.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAJA K.P., ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHENNAPATNA TOWN P.S.
REPRESENTED BY HCGP/SPP
BANGALORE 560 001.
2.
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI T.M.
W/O VIJAY KUMAR S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O 1ST CROSS, ARKESHWARANAGAR
GUTTALU, MANDYA TOWN
MANDYA 571 403.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESHA P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.5011/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.109/2023 OF
CHENNAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S
323, 324, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF LEARNED 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,
CHENNAPTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AGAINST THESE
PETITIONERS IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.5011/2023, arising out of Crime
No.109/2023 dated 14.09.2023, filed by the Channapatna
Town Police Station, against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC
pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 14.09.2023,
alleging that she is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1 i.e, wife
of brother of respondent No.2. - Dr. T.M. Honne Gowda.
Initially, the marital relationship between petitioner No.1 and
the brother of respondent No.2 was cordial for a few months.
However, subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between
them. It is further alleged that, on 13.09.2023, during the
evening hours, the petitioners, under the guise of arriving at a
compromise, called respondent No.2 to the house of petitioner
No.1, where they picked up a quarrel with her and assaulted
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
and abused respondent No.2 and her family members. Based
on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime
No.109/2023 dated 14.09.2023. Subsequently, respondent
No.1-Police conducted an investigation and filed the charge
sheet against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences.
The learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance of the
alleged offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
approached this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 so also the learned HCGP.
4. The primary contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that petitioner No.1, being the wife of Dr.
T.M.Honne Gowda, has not committed any of the alleged
offences at any point of time. On the contrary, respondent No.2
and her family members visited the house of petitioner No.1
under the pretext of arriving at a compromise and assaulted
and manhandled petitioner No.1 and her family members. In
this regard, petitioner No.1 also lodged a complaint, which
came to be registered in Crime No.108/2023. Learned counsel
further contends that the present complaint was subsequently
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
lodged as a counterblast to the said complaint. He further
submits that, except for bald and omnibus allegations in the
complaint and charge sheet, no specific overt acts are
attributed to these petitioners. He also points out that
petitioner No.1 and her husband are presently residing
together. In such circumstances, he contends that the
complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2 out of
vengeance and as a counterblast to the earlier complaint.
Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
Per contra
5. , this prayer is opposed by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 on the ground that the charge sheet has
already been filed and the statements of the material witnesses
recorded during the course of investigation disclose the
involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences.
6. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer on similar
grounds and prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the charge sheet materials.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
8. As could be gathered from the records, the relationship
between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is not in dispute.
Respondent No.2 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1.
Admittedly, there is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner
No.1 and her husband, Dr. T.M.Honne Gowda. It is alleged that,
subsequently, petitioner No.1 started residing at her parental
house and that respondent No.2 and her family members
visited the house of petitioner No.1 under the pretext of
arriving at a compromise, during which the alleged incident
took place. Admittedly, on similar allegations, a case came to
be registered against respondent No.2 and her family members
in Crime No.108/2023 for similar offences. Further, petitioner
No.1 and her husband are presently residing together cordially.
In such circumstances, having regard to the counter-allegations
made by both parties in respect of the incident dated
13.09.2023, it appears that the complaints were lodged against
each other out of vengeance, arising from the matrimonial
dispute between the parties. Now that petitioner No.1 and her
husband are residing together cordially, no useful purpose
would be served if proceedings are continued against the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59577
CRL.P No. 9198 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010413332024
petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following :
ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in
C.C.No.5011/2023, arising out of Crime
No.109/2023 dated 14.09.2023, filed by the
Channapatna Town Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,
504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of
Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, are
hereby quashed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2.1