After Doctor’s Conflicting Residence Claims, Karnataka HC Rejects Bid To Quash Mother’s Alleged Confinement Case And Directs State To Explore Case-Linking

Respondent No. 2, the 82-year-old mother of petitioner No. 1, complained that the petitioners attempted to trespass into her Mysuru house, forcibly evict her, lock rooms and confine her.

Police registered Crime No. 27/2023 under Sections 448, 342, 504 and 34 IPC; a charge sheet was filed, and the resulting proceedings were pending as C.C. No. 2052/2024.

The petitioners sought to quash those proceedings, asserting that they lived at Sakleshpur and had not trespassed into the Mysuru house.

The Court compared that position with the petitioners’ stated position in Dr. M. S. Mahesh v. Deputy Commissioner and Others, W.P. No. 5248/2025, where petitioner No. 1 had claimed to reside in the Mysuru house.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to seek quashing of proceedings alleging offences under Sections 448, 342 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court also referred to Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, under which respondent No. 2 had obtained orders considered in the related writ petition.

The order cites no precedent or specific test governing quashing, and identifies no particular perjury provision; it directs that any action be pursued before the competent court and in accordance with law.

Its general directions treat identification of related proceedings as an aid to transparency and case management, not as an automatic basis for dismissal, stay, or an adverse finding.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ submissions in light of the conflicting positions about residence: in the related writ petition, petitioner No. 1 had asserted residence in the Mysuru house and relied on documents, whereas in this petition the petitioners claimed to reside at Sakleshpur.

The Court considered that inconsistency material to the petition and dismissed it, while qualifying that any perjury action would depend on the matter being established and would proceed in accordance with law.

The coincidence that the same judge heard both matters exposed the risk that related proceedings and inconsistent factual positions may otherwise go unnoticed; the Court accordingly issued directions for the State to examine a cross-forum identification mechanism.

The Registrar General was directed to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to initiate proceedings before the competent court concerning alleged perjury, and copies of the orders in the related proceedings were to be placed on each record.

The Court also directed specified Karnataka Government officers to coordinate an examination and implementation plan for identifying potentially related proceedings, with safeguards and a joint status report; the matter was listed for compliance reporting on 14 November 2026.