Shaik Sayeed vs State Of Karnataka

-1- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION No.201383 OF 2025

BETWEEN: 1. SHAIK SAYEED S/O SHAIK RASOOL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE NATIVE OF CHITTEWADI, NEAR BOYS HOSTEL, BIDAR DISTRICT

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. T 403, INTACT AVENUE, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BANGALORE- 560014.

2. SHAIK FAREED Digitally S/O. SHAIK RASOOL signed by AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS MALATESH KC NO.6, VISMAYA NILAYA, DC HALLI MAIN ROAD, Location: HIGH 4TH STAGE, BTM, COURT OF BANGALORE-560 076 KARNATAKA 3. KOUSER PARVEEN W/O SHAIK RASOOL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A # 385, CHITTAWADI, OPP. GOVT. BOYS HOSTEL, CHITTA, BIDAR-585403 -2- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

4. ZOHRA FATHIMA W/O. SIRAJ MARKHELKAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, # 56, HANEGAON DEGLUR DISTRICT NANDED, MAHARASTRA-431741

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANDEEP HEGDE FOR SRI YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI DISTRICT REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107

2. AMEENA W/O. SHAIK SAYEED AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A IQBAL COLONY, KALABURAGI PIN-585103. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.ANITHA REDDY, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1; SRI AVINASH A. UPALAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET BEARING CC NO.4158/2025 ARISING OUT FIR IN CRIME NO.121/2024, DATED 30.09.2024 RAGAVENDRA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 85, 352, 351(2), 3(5) A/W 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4. -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Sandeep Hegde, advocate for Sri Yashas S.

Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Anitha Reddy,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1

and Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for respondent

No.2.

2. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed with the following prayer:

"WHEREFORE, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the charge sheet bearing C.C.No.4158/2025 arising out of FIR ion Crime No.121/2024 dated 30.09.2024, Ragavendranagar PS, pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable u/S 115(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 85, 352, 351(2), 3(5) a/w 3 and 4 of DP Act and all further investigation and proceedings as against the petitioners No.1 to 4 and pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."

-4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. Upon the complaint lodged by second respondent,

Ragavendranagar police, Kalaburagi Sub Division, Kalaburagi,

registered a case in Crime No.121/2024 on 30.09.2024 for the

offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 74,

85, 352, 351(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 a/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that

marriage of the second respondent/ defacto complainant was

performed with the first petitioner as per the Muslim rites and

customs. Thereafter, defacto complainant joined the

matrimonial home. Few days after the marriage, the

petitioners started harassing the second respondent demanding

share in the property and pension amount of her father.

5. In the complaint, it has been also contended that there

was demand for additional dowry over and above 30 tola gold

and Rs.1,00,000/- cash given at the time of marriage.

6. Complaint averments also reveal that on 29.09.2024 at

about 07.30 p.m, husband of the complainant, mother-in-law -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

and brother-in-law visited the house and picked up the quarrel,

abused the complainant in a filthy language and in the quarrel,

husband of the complainant/Shaik Sayeed-first petitioner, tried

to strangulate her. Mother-in-law held her hairs and dashed

her head to the wall. When she fell down, second petitioner-

Shaik Fareed who is her brother-in-law abused her in filthy

language and assaulted her with a club on the left leg and she

sustained internal injuries.

7. It is further stated that when the complainant raised hue

and cry, her elder brother Abbas Ali and Syed Shahid came and

pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, she was shifted to hospital

wherein the police enquired and registered the case in Crime

No.121/2024 for the aforesaid offences.

8. After thorough investigation charge sheet came to be

filed against all the petitioners.

9. Petitioners are now challenging the filing of the charge

sheet on the following grounds:

 "Petitioners are law-abiding citizens who have been falsely and maliciously implicated in Crime No. 121/2024 registered at Respondent No. 1 Police Station, for alleged -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

offences under Sections U/s. 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(1), 85, 74, 3(5) of BNSS and 3 & 4 of DP Act. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR and the subsequent charge sheet which, if not quashed, will irreversibly damage their liberty, dignity, and livelihood, especially that of Petitioner No.1 who is a Government employee.

 The Petitioners respectfully invoke the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the BNS 2023 to quash the impugned FIR, the charge sheet, and all consequential proceedings, on the ground that the same are ex facie illegal, perverse, and an abuse of the process of law. The arrest and prosecution of the Petitioners is not only contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence but also in gross violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare the FIR in Crime No. 121/2024 as perverse and devoid of legal sanctity, and the consequent arrest and incarceration of the Petitioners as illegal, in flagrant violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The said FIR has been used as a weapon of vengeance and vendetta by Respondent No.2, an influential government servant, who is determined to -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

destroy the personal and professional life of Petitioner No.1.

 It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 to 3 was kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours (total 37 days) a fact now being used by the complainant and her relatives to initiate departmental proceedings against him, with the express intent of getting him suspended and ultimately dismissed from service. The criminal case is being used not for justice, but as a tool for extortion and coercion. If the FIR is not quashed, Petitioner No.1 will lose his government job, which he secured on compassionate grounds after the demise of his father. His entire family depends on his income for survival. The complainant and her relatives are fully aware of this and have intentionally used the criminal process as a tool to trigger this very outcome.

 The Petitioner No. 4 is the married sister of Petitioner No. 1, residing independently along with her husband and family in the State of Maharashtra. She has never resided with the Petitioners or the Respondent after the marriage, and has no connection to the day-to-day affairs of the matrimonial household. In order to unnecessarily drag her into litigation and humiliate the entire family, Respondent No.2 has casually alleged in the complaint that Petitioner No.4 used to "mentally harass her over the phone." However, the complaint fails to specify any date, time, nature, or contents of such alleged conversations.

-8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

 The vague and sweeping allegation is clearly an afterthought, made only with the intention to enlarge the net of prosecution and cause distress to an otherwise uninvolved family member. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for prosecution and deserve to be quashed. This Hon'ble Court may therefore be pleased to record that no prima facie case is made out against Petitioner No.4, and continuation of proceedings against her would amount to gross abuse of process.

 The Petitioners respectfully submit that the entire complaint filed by Respondent No.2 is a fabricated and malicious narrative, devised with the ulterior motive of coercing a financial settlement from Petitioner No.1 and his family. It is a common and unfortunate trend in matrimonial disputes that criminal law is invoked not for justice, but as a tool of vengeance and extortion, and this case is a glaring example.

 The incident alleged in the complaint is stated to have occurred on 29.09.2024 in Kalaburagi, where Respondent No.2 alleged that Petitioners No.1 to 3 subjected her to harassment. However, this version has been conclusively disproven by CCTV footage obtained from the residential apartment complex of the Petitioners in Bengaluru, which clearly shows their presence in the building at around 7:30 PM on the same date.

-9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

 It is submitted that the brother-in-law of Petitioner No.1 has furnished CCTV footage under affidavit before the Hon'ble V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl. Misc. No.1838/2024 at the time of hearing the bail Application of Petitioner No. 1 to 3. Upon examining the CCTV footage containing the footage, the Hon'ble Court summoned Respondent No.2, who, upon viewing the video, confirmed the presence and identity of Petitioners No.1 to 3 in Bengaluru on the said date and denied to accept the same as it is been edited and produced before the Court. This admission completely nullifies the core allegation made in the FIR and clearly reveals that the FIR is a tool of pressure, intended to harass the Petitioners and extract a financial settlement by threatening the career and liberty of Petitioner No.1, a government servant and involving entire family in a false Case. The complaint is not only false but is motivated purely by vengeance and greed, as Respondent No. 2 and her family being influential government officers are now attempting to destroy the Petitioners' lives unless a monetary demand is met.

 It is further submitted that no independent or neutral witnesses, particularly any neighbours residing near the alleged place of occurrence, have been examined by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the Respondent No.2's claim of harassment on 29.09.2024 at around 7:30 PM. If at all such an incident had genuinely occurred in a residential setting as claimed, it is only natural and

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

expected that someone in the vicinity would have noticed or intervened.

 While it is often argued that urban neighbours in metropolitan areas maintain distance and may not intervene, such a presumption does not hold good in semi-urban or rural towns like Kalaburagi, where social ties and community responses still prevail. In such regions, the concept of neighbourhood support and human concern remains active, and if any commotion or harassment had actually taken place, there would have been witnesses available who could have corroborated the version of Respondent No.2.

 The complete absence of independent witness testimony, either during the investigation or as part of the charge sheet, raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the complaint. The prosecution has not produced any material evidence oral, documentary, or forensic to support the core allegations, further confirming that the FIR is based solely on the uncorroborated and contradictory narrative of Respondent No.2.

 The Petitioners respectfully submit that the injury narrative presented by Respondent No.2 is not only false and exaggerated, but also unsupported by authentic medical records. If at all Respondent No.2 had sustained the grievous and multi-site injuries as she claims to her leg, hand, shoulder, neck, and head, it is reasonable to expect that she would have immediately approached a

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

nearby Government Hospital, where such injuries would be properly examined, documented, and verified by neutral medical professionals and on MLC report the police would have come to the hospital to record the statement, as she had not sustained such injuries MLC report is not done through Government Hospital.

 The Respondent No.2 has chosen to obtain a Medico Legal Case (MLC) registration from QP Multi speciality Hospital, a private hospital, and has done so on payment and nearby hospital to her home where the Doctor who issued the wound Certificate is also a Muslim, it creates suspicion as to the authenticity and impartiality of the documentation. The Wound Certificate obtained from this hospital fails to match the injury claims made in the complaint. It mentions only simple injuries and omits any detailed reference to injuries allegedly sustained on the major parts of her body.

 Crucially, the MLC and Wound Certificate mention only the husband and his brother as alleged perpetrators and make no reference whatsoever to the mother-in-law (Petitioner No.3), thereby discrediting the allegations against her, which are purely afterthoughts inserted later to drag the entire family into litigation. The MLC report and Wound Certificate are not reliable, and appear to be concocted to a false complaint.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

 It is respectfully submitted that the matrimonial house of Respondent No.2 is situated at Bangalore. However, the Investigating Officer, i.e., Respondent No.1, has conducted a mahazar at a residence in Bidar, falsely recording that the household articles allegedly gifted by Respondent No.2 were located there. The said action appears to be deliberate, as Respondent No.1 has intentionally avoided conducting the mahazar at the actual matrimonial residence in Bangalore-possibly to suppress material evidence, including the CCTV footage available both for the date of the alleged incident and the date of the mahazar. This omission is a serious procedural lapse and reflects clear bias in the investigation.

 Respondent No.2's father and other close relatives are senior government officers with access to influence across police, revenue, and departmental channels. That is the reason that within a span of 1 year the Respondent No. 2 has taken four transfers from (a) Humnabad to Chanfapura R.T.O., (b) Chandapur R.T.O. to Attibele Check Post, (c) Attibele Check Post to Yadagiri and (d) from Yadagiri to Kalaburagi. They have bribed the Authorities to get her transferred with in the span of few months and days again and again.

 It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has cohabited with Petitioner No.1 for only about one month during the entire subsistence of the matrimonial relationship. Although the marriage was solemnized in May 2024, Respondent No.2 was relieved from her government posting at Humnabad

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

only on 18.07.2024. Upon joining Petitioner No.1 at the matrimonial home in Bangalore, her conduct was dominating, aggressive, and controlling. She would frequently threaten Petitioners No.1 to 3 with false criminal cases if her unreasonable demands were not met, and specifically warned that she could jeopardize the careers of Petitioners No.1 and 2.

 It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 insisted that Petitioner No.1 apply for a transfer to Kalaburagi, where she intended to relocate. Upon his refusal to succumb to such coercive demands, Respondent No.2 abruptly left the matrimonial home on 21.08.2024. Before leaving, she issued a clear ultimatum stating that if Petitioner No.1 wished to continue the marital relationship, he must relocate to her preferred place of posting, failing which she would ensure he faced dire consequences. Her departure from the matrimonial home was entirely voluntary and based on such unwarranted threats.

 In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273], the Apex Court laid down mandatory safeguards in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. The Hon'ble Court directed that no arrest shall be made in such cases routinely, and that police must:

a. Conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering FIR under Section 498A IPC

b. Issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC to accused persons calling them to appear

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

c. Record written reasons for any arrest, and forward the same to the Magistrate

Despite the binding nature of these directions, in the present case:

1) No notice under Section 41A CrPC was issued to any of the Petitioners

2) No inquiry was conducted into the veracity of the complaint

3) No opportunity to be heard or cooperate in investigation was provided

4) No justification for immediate arrest was recorded by the police

 The conduct of the police amounts to state-sponsored abuse and has resulted in irreversible social and psychological trauma to the Petitioners. It also demonstrates a clear nexus between the complainant and the investigating agency, wherein the machinery of law has been reduced to a personal tool of vengeance. The Respondent and her family have persistently and systematically abused official position and state machinery to harass and humiliate the Petitioners.

 It is well settled that non-compliance with Section 41 and 41A CrPC vitiates the arrest. In the instant case, not only were the Petitioners denied these statutory protections, but they were treated as hardened criminals, paraded before the Magistrate, and deprived of their liberty in

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 It is respectfully submitted that this entire sequence has been orchestrated with the sole intention of having Petitioner No.1 suspended from government service, and ultimately dismissed, unless he agrees to pay a monetary settlement to Respondent No.2 as per her demand. This clearly establishes that the FIR and its aftermath are not driven by a genuine grievance, but by malicious and extortionate motives.

 The Petitioners further state that these acts constitute abuse of legal process, misuse of power, and exploitation of procedural provisions for personal vendetta. The FIR and charge sheet are being wielded as leverage to blackmail the Petitioner into submission under threat of career destruction.

 The Petitioners respectfully submit that the FIR in Crime No. 121/2024 and the resultant charge sheet are liable to be quashed in limine for the following legal and factual reasons. The continuation of criminal proceedings based on such a foundation would amount to nothing short of injustice, harassment, and abuse of the process of law.

 The FIR does not contain any specific, date-wise or incident-wise allegations. The accusations are vague, omnibus, and generalized a pattern commonly seen in

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

false matrimonial complaints intended to rope in the husband and his entire family. The complaint merely reproduces stereotyped allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty, with no mention of specific acts by Petitioner No.3 and 4. Even against Petitioner No.1, the complaint is emotionally charged but legally hollow.

 The Supreme Court has clearly held that vague and omnibus allegations against the husband's family members cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. The FIR in the present case falls squarely within this category. It also cautioned against mechanical prosecution in matrimonial disputes and emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny. The FIR in question lacks even a prima facie case against the Petitioners.

 Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they do not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(1), 85, 74, 3(5) of BNSS 2023 a/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no mention of any demand for dowry, no evidence of wilful conduct likely to drive the complainant to suicide or grave injury, and no act that can attract the provisions invoked.

 The timing, context, and content of the FIR make it evident that it is not a result of genuine grievance but a tool of retaliation and coercion. The complainant's objective is to use the criminal justice system to:

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

a) Arrest and humiliate the Petitioners

b) Secure departmental suspension/dismissal of Petitioner No.1

c) Pressure him into a monetary settlement

d) Destroy his family's dignity and financial stability

 It is further prayed that the Hon'ble Court may declare the registration of the FIR in the present form as perverse, abuse of process, and liable to be quashed, being initiated without compliance with mandatory preconditions under law.

 The Petitioners respectfully submit that they had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Criminal Petition No. 210690 of 2024, seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.121/2024 registered by Raghavendra Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga. The said petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 01/07/2025, on the Memo filed by the Petitioners' Counsel as the Petition is not maintainable U/s. 482 of CRPC. The new section of BNS had to be mentioned.

 It is now clear from the contents of the charge sheet that it merely reproduces the FIR narrative without any application of mind, independent investigation, or collection of credible evidence. The witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are vague, identical in

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

structure, and lack any independent corroboration. The charge sheet does not cure the fundamental defects of the FIR instead, it further confirms that the entire case is based on unsubstantiated, vindictive allegations.

10. Sri Sandeep Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently

contented that police have conducted a perfunctory

investigation and filed false charge sheet to help the

complainant.

11. He would further contend that materials are available on

record to show that none of the petitioners were present at the

place of the incident and there is CCTV footage which would

conclusively establish that all the petitioners were in Bengaluru

and a false complaint came to be lodged against them.

12. He would also contend that continuation of the criminal

proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law and

therefore, sought for quashing of the charge sheet.

13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader-Smt.

Anitha Reddy would contend that the matter has been

thoroughly investigated and charge sheet came to be filed.

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

14. Material on record in the form of spot mahazar and the

statements of the witnesses would prima facie establish that

the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences and

sought for dismissal of the petition.

15. Sri Avinash Upalaonkar, learned counsel for the

respondent no.2/defacto complainant supports the filing of the

charge sheet by contending that the plea of the petitioners per

se amounts to alibi which needs to be established during the

trial after the prosecution completes its adducing of the

evidence and therefore, same cannot be taken note of by this

Court at this stage for quashing the charge sheet by exercising

the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 and thus sought for dismissal of the petition.

16. Sri Sandeep Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners, in

reply would contend that petitioner No.4 is permanent resident

of Maharashtra State and to establish the same, necessary

documentary evidence is placed on record and therefore in the

event this Court not accepting the contentions of the

petitioners, at least, as against the petitioner No.4, the charge

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

sheet may be quashed, by following the dictum of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and

others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022)6

SCC 599.

17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

18. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal

clear that the statements of eye witnesses have been recorded

by the Investigation Officer and learned Trial Judge has taken

cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

19. Whether at all those statements are concocted for the

purpose of the case or not cannot be decided by this Court by

holding a mini trial that too, while considering the petition

under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

20. Further, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Kahkashan Kausar supra, charge sheet against

the petitioner No.4 needs to be quashed inasmuch as prima

facie she did not share the common roof as could be seen from

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

the complaint averments as well as the material placed on

record.

21. In a matter of this nature it is not uncommon that all the

members of the family would be roped in by the complainant.

Therefore, on the complaint averments alone that the fourth

petitioner was also involved in the incident, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the charge sheet against the fourth

petitioner cannot be continued and she is not required to face

the trial.

22. Hence, a case is made out to quash the pending charge

sheet as against the fourth petitioner.

23. Insofar as the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, the

plea of the petitioners that they were not present at the time of

incident based on CCTV footage said to have been retained by

the petitioners, cannot be taken note of by this Court at this

stage as it is a matter that is to be decided during the trial as a

defence.

24. Suffice to say that expressing any opinion on the merits

of the matter that too at the time of considering the request for

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7689 CRL.P No. 201383 of 2025

HC-KAR

quashing the charge sheet would hamper the rights of the

parties in the trial one way or the other.

25. As such, without holding the mini trial, when the material

is available on record in the form of statements of eye

witnesses including the injured and the other connecting

materials, namely spot major etc., would be sufficient enough

to proceed with the case insofar as petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are

concerned.

26. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Pending case in CC No.4158/2025 on the file

of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Kalaburagi, insofar as the fourth petitioner is

concerned, stands quashed.

(iii) Petition insofar as petitioner Nos.1 to 3 stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm