SMT UMA C vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7278 OF 2019
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5008 OF 2019
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

IN CRL.P No. 7278/2019





BETWEEN:

SMT UMA C
W/O SRI PREMANATH D.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RD
R/A NO.66, 3 CROSS,
M C C APARTMENT,
SRIRAMPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 021
…PETITIONER







Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001

2.
SRI ALKESH VINOD SHAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O VINOD KANJI SHAH
SHALIMAR AGARBATTI CO.,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




P.B NO.2114, 32 AND 33
RD
3 CROSS, SRIRAMAPURA
BENGALURU – 560 021
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAMESH D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.98/2019 REGISTERED BY THE SRIRAMPURA P.S.,
ST
BENGALURU 1 RESPONDENT AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.17735/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII A.C.M.M., AT
BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO. 5008/2019
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI PREMANATH D.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O R.K.DEVENDRA,

2. SMT UMA C.,
AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O SRI PRAMANTH D.,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.66,
RD
3 CROSS, M C C APARTMENT,
SRIRAMPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 0211
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRAMPUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




2. SRI ALKESH VINOD SHAH
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O VINOD KANJI SHAH,
SHALIMAR AGARBATRI CO.,
P.B.NO.2114, 32 AND 33,
RD
3 CROSS, SRIRAPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 021.

REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER,
SRI B.R.RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE R.RAVINDRANATH,
SHALIMAR AGARBATTI CO.,
P.B.NO.2114, 32 AND 33,
RD
3 CROSS, SRIRAPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAMESH D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR
REGISTERED BY THE SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION,
ST
BENGALURU - 1 RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.178/2018 AND
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8161/2019 ON THE FILE OF
VII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019





CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant, and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The prayer in Crl.P.No.7278/2019 is to quash the
FIR registered in Crime No.0098/2019 by Srirampura Police
Station, Bengaluru, and the proceedings in C.C. No.
17735/2019 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. The prayer in Crl.P.No.5008/2019 is to quash the
FIR registered in Crime No.0178/2018 by Srirampura Police
Station, Bengaluru, and the proceedings in C.C.No.8161/2019
pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
4. The factual matrix of these petitions is based on
two private complaints filed before the learned Magistrate. In

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




respect of Crl.P.No.7278/2019, the complaint was filed in PCR
No.7190/2019. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to
the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, the police
registered the FIR, conducted the investigation, and filed the
charge sheet against the petitioners.
5. The allegation is that, on 10.03.2019, between 5.00
a.m. and 7.00 a.m., when a lorry bearing registration No. TN
AD 3469 was parked near the godown belonging to CW-1 for
unloading goods, the accused threw a coconut at the window of
the said lorry, as a result of which, the window glass was
broken and caused a loss of Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, the
charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under
Sections 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contended that respondent No.2 is running an Agarbatti
Manufacturing Unit at Door No. 67, 3rd Cross, Srirampuram,
Bengaluru. The petitioners are residents of the same locality
and reside on the second floor of the MCC Apartment, situated
adjacent to the said manufacturing unit.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




7. It is stated that heavy trucks, including 12-wheeler
container trucks, are parked on either side of the road in front
of the manufacturing unit as well as the apartment in which the
petitioners reside. The drivers of the parked heavy truck
intentionally accelerate for about 10 to 20 minutes on arrival,
thereby causing inconvenience to the residents. The petitioners
requested respondent No.2 not to cause such nuisance.
However, no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioners
approached the police, but their complaints were not
registered, and only NCR was issued on 29.05.2018. Inspite of
approaching the concerned authorities on several occasions, no
effective action was taken.
8. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners
had produced documents Nos. 1 to 7 that complaints had been
lodged against respondent No.2 and that the present complaint
was filed with the intention of harassing the petitioners and it is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
9. The learned counsel further contended that the
learned Magistrate had failed to take note of the factual aspects
and referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3)

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




of the Cr.P.C. The very intention of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners had caused mental agony to the
petitioners and affected their day-to-day lives. The counsel also
submitted that the present complaint was an offshoot of the
earlier complaints lodged by the petitioners against respondent
No. 2.
10. In support of the said contention, the learned
counsel referred to the complaint dated 29.05.2018, the NCR
issued on the same date, photographs showing the parking of
lorries near the apartment, the complaint lodged by the
petitioner's husband dated 29.08.2018, the endorsement dated
09.10.2018, the complaint dated 01.10.2018, and another
document dated 07.12.2018. It was contended that all these
documents clearly discloses in which context the present
complaint had been lodged. Hence, the learned counsel sought
quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
contending that the allegations in the complaint and the
charge-sheet material did not disclose the commission of the
alleged offences.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




11. In Crl.P. No. 5008/2019, filed by the husband of the
petitioner in Crl.P. No.7278/2019, the learned counsel relied
upon the documents produced in the connected petition and
contended that the complaint against him was also an offshoot
of the earlier complaints lodged by him and his wife.
12. It was submitted that PCR No.109/2018 was filed
and the matter was referred to the police for investigation. The
police thereafter registered the FIR in Crime No. 178/2018,
conducted the investigation, and filed the charge sheet. The
learned counsel reiterated the grounds urged in the connected
petition.
13. It was further contended that the allegation against
the petitioners was that they had poured water on the raw
materials, thereby causing a loss of Rs.24,000/-. The offences
included those punishable under Sections 427, 503 and 506 of
the IPC. The learned counsel submitted that the allegations in
the complaint and the charge sheet did not attract the offences
invoked and that the complaint had been filed with the sole
intention of harassing the petitioners.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/complainant vehemently opposed the
petitions.
15. With regard to Crl.P.No.7278/2019, it was
submitted that specific allegations had been made against the
petitioner that, on 10.03.2019, she had thrown a coconut at
the window of the lorry, thereby causing loss to the tune of
Rs.15,000/-. As the police had not taken action, the
complainant filed a private complaint and the matter was
referred for investigation.
16. It was further submitted that, during the course of
the investigation, the police conducted a mahazar and recorded
the statements of the witnesses who are the eye witnesses to
the incident relating to the offences punishable under Sections
427, 506 and 503 of the IPC. The grounds urged by the
petitioner could be urged before the trial Court during the
course of trial. The trial Court has not committed any error in
taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of the charge
sheet, as specific allegations have been made against the
petitioner. CWs.1 to 9 are the witnesses to the incident, the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




drawing of the mahazar, and the damage caused to the lorry.
The photographs clearly depicts that the window glass of the
lorry was broken, and a bill relating to the repair of the glass
was also produced in support of the alleged loss of Rs.15,000/-.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State also submitted that the statements of the eyewitnesses
had been recorded during the course of investigation and that
the matter requires trial.
18. In respect to Crl.P.No.5008/2019, the learned
counsel for the complainant contended that the allegation that
the complaint was an offshoot of the earlier complaints lodged
by the petitioners could not be accepted for quashing the
proceedings. Specific allegations had been made that the
petitioners had poured water on the raw materials, causing a
loss of Rs.24,000/-. The police had conducted a mahazar and
recorded the statements of witnesses in that regard. Hence, it
was contended that the matter requires trial and that the
grounds urged by the petitioners could not be considered in a
petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




19. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
2/complainant, and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State, and having perused the material on record,
it is to be noted that both complaints were filed before the
learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred the matters
to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the police
have registered separate FIRs, investigated the matter and
charge sheets were filed.
20. In respect of Crl.P.No.7278/2019 is concerned, the
police, after registering the FIR, investigated the matter, filed
the charge sheet citing CWs. 1 to 9, including the mahazar
witnesses and the eyewitnesses to the incident.
21. The photographs produced on record and the bill
relating to the repair of the lorry glass are relied upon by the
prosecution in support of the alleged damage. The learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that the registration
number of the lorry mentioned in the mahazar was different
wherein the correct registration number is mentioned in the
complaint and that the photographs also depict the said

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




number. When such being the case the grounds which have
been urged could be considered during the course of trial.
22. In respect of Crl.P.No.5008/2019 is concerned, the
matter was referred to the police for investigation, and the
police thereafter filed the charge sheet. Perused the charge-
sheet. The specific allegation is that the petitioners poured
water on the raw materials, thereby caused loss to a tune of
Rs.24,000/-, and that the incident occurred on 01.07.2018.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that there were discrepancies between the timings of the
incident and the recording of the statements of the witnesses.
Such contention could be considered during the course of the
trial and petitioners can cross-examine the witnesses with
regard to the contradiction is concerned.
24. In Crl.P.No.5008/2019, the charge sheet cites
CWs.1 to 9, including the eyewitnesses and the mahazar
witnesses, and documents are produced along with the charge
sheet. Whether the incident was taken place which resulted in
the loss and whether the ingredients of the offences invoked,

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




including the offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC,
are made out are matters to be considered during trial.
25. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners
brought to the notice of this Court the earlier complaints lodged
by them against respondent No.2 and the concerned authorities
in May and August 2018. However, no action was taken on the
complaints lodged by the petitioners, and only endorsements
were issued. The main contention of the petitioners is that the
present complaints have been filed with an oblique motive.
However, having regard to the documents produced in support
of the damage to the lorry glass, the mahazars conducted
during the investigation, and the witnesses cited in the charge
sheet, this Court comes to the conclusion that the matter
requires consideration during the course of trial.
26. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
disputed questions of fact cannot be decided. Hence, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding
the circumstances in which the complaints were lodged and the
registration of the cases can be considered at the time of trial.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57764
CRL.P No. 7278 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 5008 of 2019

CNR: KAHC010311152019




27. Having considered the material on record and the
discussions made above, I do not find any grounds to exercise
its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
28. In view of the above discussions, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal petitions are dismissed .

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE




VMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10