SMT. L.V. MOHAN KUMARI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3331 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SMT. L.V. MOHAN KUMARI
WIFE OF N NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #406, LOHIT NAGAR,
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-562 123.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURESH SHOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BHASKAR GOWDA N.M AND
SRI. PRAMODA GOWDA, T.P, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. SRI HOMBAIAH
SON OF DEVARAHATTI BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #65
PANCHAMI NILAYA,
MUNCIPAL QUARTERS ROAD,
SUBHASHNAGAR,
NELAMANGALA,










Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE:562 123.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.181/2023 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S. 120(b), 420, 468, 471, 504, 406, 34 OF IPC
REGISTERED BY THE NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC NELAMANGALA AT ANNEXURE - A ON THE BASIS OF
COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT AS PER ANNEXURE-
B BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER


This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the FIR against the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime
No.181/2023, registered by Nelamangala Town Police, for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 504
and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of II
Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.

2. The brief facts of the case are, respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that
accused No.1 along with his friends Hari Shastri and Veeresh
met him during the second week of December and requested

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



him that the relative of accused No.1 namely Manjunath has a
Demand Draft bearing D.D.No.678438 drawn on State Bank of
India, in his name for a sum of Rs.49,00,00,000/-. To encash
the same, accused No.1 requested respondent No.2 for
financial help to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by way of cash as
a hand loan. Further, he promised that he would return the
same within three days. Believing the words of accused No.1,
respondent No.2 borrowed money from Dasarahalli Suresh,
Nelamangala Lokesh, Kasarghatada Gangadhara, Dodderi
Mahesh and Puttanna Budihal to the tune of Rs.1,29,00,000/-
and lent the same to accused No.1 and he lent a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- to accused No.2 by way of RTGS and also by
way of cash from 26.12.2022 to 28.12.2022. Accused Nos.1 to
3, with a common intention, failed to repay the said amount for
a period of six months and they were not answering the calls of
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 requested his friend to
verify about the same near the house of accused No.1, at that
time, wife of accused No.1 - L.V. Mohan Kumari abused
respondent No.2’s friend. As such, respondent No.2 filed a
complaint. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to
be registered against four accused persons, by arraying this

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



petitioner as accused No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred this petition to quash the FIR registered
against her.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.

4. The primary contention of learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner is that, on perusal of the complaint
averments, absolutely there is no connection whatsoever to this
petitioner in respect of the alleged monetary transaction
between accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2. Admittedly,
the petitioner is not a party to the monitory transaction.
Further, the petitioner is implicated in the crime solely for the
reason that she is the wife of accused No.1. The allegation in
the complaint that, after six months from lending of loan to
accused No.1, when respondent No.2’s friend visited the house
of accused No.1, the petitioner abused him in filthy language.
There is no specific date, time, or manner in which the offence
committed by her is narrated in the complaint. In such
circumstance, he submits that, except such bald and ominous
allegation, absolutely no other materials are placed against the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



petitioner. As such, respondent No.2 filed the complaint out of
vengeance and the same cannot be continued. Additionally, he
contended that the matter is purely commercial in nature and
as such, he prays to allow the petition.

5. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by learned
counsel for respondent No.2. He contended that the
investigation is at nascent stage and respondent No.1-Police
have yet to collect the materials by recording further statement
of respondent No.2. He also contended that a huge amount of
Rs.1,39,50,000/- was defrauded by the accused and
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime has to be
tested in the investigation. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.

6. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer of the
petitioner on the similar grounds.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions and perused the documents made available before
this Court.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



8. As could be gathered from the complaint
averments, it is specifically stated that accused Nos.1 to 3
approached respondent No.2 in the month of December and
they obtained the hand loan from him and thereafter, failed to
repay the same. Absolutely no such role assigned to the
petitioner in respect of the monetary transaction. The only
allegation in the complaint is, subsequently when the friend of
respondent No.2 visited the house of accused No.1, the
petitioner being the wife of accused No.1, abused him in filthy
language. As rightly contented by learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner, no such specific date, time or manner in which
the petitioner involved in the crime is stated in the complaint.

9. It is 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

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



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 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.

10. On overall perusal of the materials on record, if
entire allegation in the FIR and other documents taken into

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59000
CRL.P No. 3331 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010204642024



consideration at its face value, even then, no case has been
made against the petitioner/accused No.4 for the offences
alleged against her. Hence, continuation of proceedings against
her is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following;
ORDER


i. The petition is allowed .

ii. The proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime
No.181/2023, registered by Nelamangala
Town Police, for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 504
and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC,
pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Nelamangala, is hereby quashed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE








HKV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0