SRI. RAVEENDRA HEGDE ALIAS RAVINDRA HEGADE vs STATE BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAVEENDRA HEGDE
ALIAS RAVINDRA HEGADE
S/O SRI GANAPATHI NARAYAN HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ST
WAS RESIDING AT NO.303, 1 STAGE,
B-5, SURYA CITY, CHANDAPURA
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-562 107

ALSO AT: #1, STANTON COURT,
PLAINSBORO, NEW JERSEY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-08536








Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH U.T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 107
REP BY GOVERNMENT
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001

2. SMT. N. GAYATHRI
W/O SRI. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ST
VILLA NO B.A.80, 1 PHASE,
RIBERT ACRES, GOLDEN HOMES,
INDLABELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE,
SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-562 107
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. NAVEENARADHYA S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1072/2019,
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
ANEKAL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504 AND 506 R/W 34
OF IPC (ANNEXURE-B), FIR IN CR.NO.375/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC,
(ANNEXURE-C) AND COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2018 LODGED
ON 01.11.2018 (ANNEXURE-D) IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER
HEREIN IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.2 in
C.C.No.1072/2019 (arising out of Crime No.375/2018
registered by Attibele Police Station), for the offences
punishable under sections 341, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of IPC,
presently pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC at Anekal (for short, 'the learned Magistrate').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
01.11.2018, alleging that she had taken a Villa No.BA-80
situated at Indlabele, Golden Homes, 1st Phase, Robert Acres,
on lease for a period of 10 years and was residing therein along
with her family members. It is alleged that, despite seven years
of the lease period remaining, the petitioner and another
person, namely, Ravindra Hegde and Aravind Hegde,
respectively, were causing trouble to her with an intention to
forcibly evict her from the premises. It is further alleged that a

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



civil dispute was pending between the parties and that the said
persons had come near her house, picked up a quarrel and
threatened her.
3. It is further alleged that on 01.05.2018 at about
8.50 a.m., the petitioner came to her house along with certain
persons and created a disturbance. Further, on 13.10.2018, the
aforesaid Aravind Hegde came near her house along with
unknown persons and threatened her. It is also alleged that the
petitioner, who was residing in the USA, had sent rowdy
elements near her house, who threatened her with deadly
weapons to vacate the premises. It is further alleged that the
said persons were following her daughters while going to school
and her husband while going to work. Hence, respondent No.2
lodged the complaint against the petitioner and the aforesaid
Aravind Hegde.
4. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1-
Police registered FIR in Crime No.375/2018 dated 01.11.2018
for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation,
respondent No.1-Police filed the charge sheet against the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



petitioner and another for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC,
arraying the petitioner as accused No.2. The learned Magistrate
thereafter took cognizance of the said offences. Aggrieved by
the same and seeking quashing of the proceedings, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that, on perusal of the complaint averments,
the ingredients of Sections 506, 504 and 341 of the IPC are not
attracted against the petitioner, as there is no specific
allegation that the petitioner had illegally trespassed into the
property, threatened respondent No.2 with her life, or
wrongfully restrained her. Except for bald and omnibus
allegations in the complaint and charge-sheet, there are no
specific allegations or materials to substantiate the offences
alleged against the petitioner. It is further contended that, as a
civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and respondent
No.2, the latter, with an intention to give a criminal colour to
the civil dispute, has lodged a false complaint against the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks to allow the
petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
learned HCGP, jointly opposing the petition, contended that the
charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the
prosecution has cited eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.
Their statements are required to be tested in a full-fledged trial
and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this

stage. Accordingly, they sought dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire materials on record.
9. As could be gathered from the complaint
averments, the landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that
respondent No.2 has instituted a suit against the petitioner
seeking an injunction. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, respondent No.2 is a chronic defaulter in payment of
rent. Further, on a perusal of the complaint averments, except

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



for certain bald and omnibus allegations that, in the month of
May 2018, the petitioner and his associates had threatened
respondent No.2 and insisted that she vacate the premises, no
specific allegation is made against the petitioner. Admittedly,
respondent No.2 did not lodge any complaint immediately after
the alleged incident, and the present complaint came to be
lodged only in November 2018. Even the statements of the
witnesses contain only bald and omnibus allegations against
the petitioner. In such circumstances, the material on record
prima facie indicates that the complaint has been lodged by
respondent No.2 with an intention to give a criminal colour to
the existing civil dispute and to wreak vengeance against the
petitioner.
10. In such circumstances, the complaint averments on
face of it reveals that the same is filed out of vengeance. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED ALI AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF UP - 2023 (15) SCC 488 in paragraph
No.11 to 14 held as under:
"11. The entire case put up by the first informant on
the face of it appears to be concocted and

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the
parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of
an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters are:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. (6)
Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.” We are of the view
that the case of the present appellants
falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7
resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).
12. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the 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 circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and
a little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused
with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not
be just enough for the Court 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. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances 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 the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage
of a case but is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
have been registered over a period of time. It is in
the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga
Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court elaborated on the types of materials the
High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court
drew a fine distinction between consideration of
materials that were tendered as evidence and
appreciation of such evidence. Only such material
that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the
FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The
Court held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that authority
so as to produce injustice, the court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be
an abuse of the process of the court to
allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court
would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation or
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out
even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR
1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this
Court summarised some categories of
cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the
proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears
that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the
first information report or
complaint taken at its face value
and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence
alleged;

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



(iii) where the allegations
constitute an offence, but there is
no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the
charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the
accusations made, and a case where
there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in
question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the
same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and bring
about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis
supplied)
14. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside.
The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of
2022 dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station
Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby
quashed."
11. Collocating the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the above judgment to the fact and circumstance of this case, I
am of the considered view that the continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 is nothing but
abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60704
CRL.P No. 3442 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010201552024



ORDER

i. The petition is allowed .

ii. The proceedings against the petitioner
- accused No.2 in C.C.No.1072/2019
(arising out of Crime No.375/2018
registered by Attibele Police Station),
for the offences punishable under
sections 341, 504, 506 r/w section 34
of IPC, presently pending on the file of
I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at
Anekal, is hereby quashed.



SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE

GPG/CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8