Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 2 Men Over Alleged Trespass, Assault After Complainant’s Counsel Says No Incident Occurred

In brief

The question

1. Whether the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 (accused Nos. 1 and 10) should be quashed in light of respondent No. 2’s submission that no incident had occurred.

The court held

The petition was allowed in part: proceedings in C.C. No. 61209/2024 arising from Crime No. 513/2023 were quashed against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 (accused Nos. 1 and 10) for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 323, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed as infructuous concerning petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 (accused Nos. 4 and 7).

Proceedings against the remaining accused were directed to continue.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 complained that, on 4 August 2023, the petitioners and others attempted to trespass into her home and threatened her.

pp. 3–p. 5

The police registered Crime No. 513/2023 and filed a charge sheet against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 (accused Nos. 1 and 10); petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 (accused Nos. 4 and 7) were not included in the charge sheet.

pp. 3–p. 5

The Magistrate took cognizance against accused Nos. 1 and 10.

pp. 3–p. 5

In a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respondent No. 2’s counsel submitted that the complaint had been lodged inadvertently, that no such incident had occurred, and sought quashing of the proceedings.

pp. 3–p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 (accused Nos. 1 and 10) should be quashed in light of respondent No. 2’s submission that no incident had occurred.

pp. 5–p. 6

ii.2. Whether proceedings could be quashed against petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 (accused Nos. 4 and 7), who had been left out of the charge sheet.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings.

p. 3 · pp. 5–p. 6

The alleged offences were under Sections 448, 323, 354 and 506, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code.

p. 3 · pp. 5–p. 6

The order cites no precedent or further legal test; it records that the complainant’s counsel stated that no incident had occurred and that the complaint was lodged inadvertently.

p. 3 · pp. 5–p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 323 Section 354 Section 448 Section 506 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court relied on respondent No. 2’s counsel’s submission that the alleged incident had not taken place and that the complaint had been made inadvertently.

pp. 5–p. 6

On that basis, it quashed the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, against whom the charge sheet had been filed.

pp. 5–p. 6

As petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 had not been charge-sheeted, the Court held that quashing proceedings against them did not arise and dismissed their part of the petition as infructuous.

pp. 5–p. 6